# Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?



## MathewSmith

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


----------



## Wyatt earp

You go first the IRS accepts donations


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Of course they should, but they won't

Because those same rich are the ones who are buying the politicians to get even more tax cuts so they can create jobs....

But you already know that


----------



## gipper

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?  

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...

 but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...

Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax


----------



## eagle1462010

Ray From Cleveland said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
Click to expand...

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?


----------



## rightwinger

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure


Crony Capitalism is the failure not the supply side.


----------



## NYcarbineer

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Click to expand...

 That would be?


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
Click to expand...


Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.

I should say though that I don't agree with having an oversimplified tax plan.  There should always be some room for one to reduce one's taxes by various worthwhile means.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
Click to expand...


Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.


----------



## eagle1462010

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
Click to expand...

 We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.


----------



## eagle1462010

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for him................wouldn't want to anyway...........but it would be a progressive Flat Tax based on income..............with those in poverty levels paying no taxes or a very small percentage of taxes.....As the income goes up the bracket percentages change based on income as they do now.................

The biggest argument I get from people like the NY poster is that it would remove the tax system welfare checks.  aka the Tax Credits under the system that give returns to those already paying no Federal Taxes now.......with the exception of SS and Medicare taxes which are matched by the employer...............This amounts to roughly 200 Billion a year plus every year in returns under the current system.  

It's a hand out system along with the other hand outs that are already on the table.  With the newest one being proposed to give the poor free internet................Increasing the Social Safety nets already on the books................

It is guaranteed to raise the costs of Gov't, and guarantees that we will continue to go down the path of unsustainable debt.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
Click to expand...


Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.


----------



## eagle1462010

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
Click to expand...

Not really..............business tax versus wage taxation is a different animal.
If you are running a business with x revenue versus y expenses to run the business it is still an x minus y equation to figure income.

Unless you are doing creative accounting under the current system to pay less in taxes on income.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The rich, supposedly, do pay more.  In fact, we must make that so.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> The rich, supposedly, do pay more.  In fact, we must make that so.


Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head.  They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........

Unless you just don't want to look there.

The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........

The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.


----------



## Sonny Clark

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.


----------



## rdean

If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Sonny Clark said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
Click to expand...

 oh come on sonny, we all know the rich scams the system. It's like Obama and the Iran deal he is realising billions of dollars to Iran to further them to fund terrorist across the middle east.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure



Everything you know is wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
Click to expand...


Then you should support the FAIR tax.  Look into it.


----------



## Mac1958

Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.

Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.

What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
.


----------



## Wyatt earp

rdean said:


> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.



Except your 30% is $3 bucks 

And 

A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars


----------



## rightwinger

Sonny Clark said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
Click to expand...

The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.
Click to expand...


You would have one rate under a flat tax.

You can simplify the tax system without eliminating the progressive tax brackets.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really..............business tax versus wage taxation is a different animal.
> If you are running a business with x revenue versus y expenses to run the business it is still an x minus y equation to figure income.
> 
> Unless you are doing creative accounting under the current system to pay less in taxes on income.
Click to expand...


Well then again, it's not really a flat tax system.  The promoters of flat tax have businesses in mind.  That's because politicians give breaks to financial supporters and some get many more breaks than others.  Do you want a tax break for your industry?  Then pay up. 

So I can understand their concern, but I don't think there is a way to have a flat tax system that works for everybody, especially the politicians.  That's why everybody talks about scrapping the tax system and starting a new one, but nobody ever does.


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .



The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have one rate under a flat tax.
> 
> You can simplify the tax system without eliminating the progressive tax brackets.
Click to expand...

 so you want the same tax rate we have now an a added national sales tax? I am confused. 

Listening to a neighbor and trying to follow this thread at the same time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
Click to expand...


Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.  

The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have one rate under a flat tax.
> 
> You can simplify the tax system without eliminating the progressive tax brackets.
Click to expand...


As long as you have an income tax, it's going to be complicated because the determination of "income" is never simple.  The government will always have to make rules to determine what is legitimate income and what isn't.  There will always be thousands of such rules.


----------



## eagle1462010

Mac1958 said:


> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .


More input........................explain...............

Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........


----------



## charwin95

Sonny Clark said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
Click to expand...

Amen...


----------



## Mac1958

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
Click to expand...

I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.

What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.  

There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
.


----------



## Sonny Clark

bear513 said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh come on sonny, we all know the rich scams the system. It's like Obama and the Iran deal he is realising billions of dollars to Iran to further them to fund terrorist across the middle east.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why no one should be taxed any differently. Look at the untold $Billion sent outside of this once great nation. Look at foreign aid, look at senseless deadly costly wars, no-bid government contracts such as Halliburton and GE, and all the waste, abuse, and fraud of our hard earned tax dollars. Why give the government any more than is necessary for public services, and to keep the government running for the benefit of all citizens? Taxes are a scam, a con, and the system is rigged. Yes, many make untold multi-$Billions from tax fraud, tax loopholes, tax shelters, hidden off-shore accounts, and other means and methods.

Why should anyone be forced to fund waste, fraud, and abuse? Why should anyone be treated differently? Are we not all citizens, with equal responsibility? Do we not all use the same public services? Do we not all need national security ( our military )?


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.
> 
> What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.
> 
> There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
> .
Click to expand...


They mostly incentivize mal-investment.  You're right, what benefits society is subjective.  That's why it should be left up to individuals to decide what benefits themselves.  Government will never make the correct decision.  Whenever it has tried the results are disastrous.  The recent housing fiasco is a classic example.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.
> 
> What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.
> 
> There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
> .
Click to expand...

 Mac, I am not a trained monkey who likes to do tricks and bores the he'll out of me during tax time.... I hate waiting in lines

Just tell me what I owe.


----------



## Iceweasel

The language is important. In business expenses are a deduction but it has to be because that's what it costs to do business. If you made $500 on a $1,000 job you made $500, not $1,000, although that's what you collected. Taxes should be based on income, that's what I always understood a flat tax to be.


----------



## eagle1462010

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.
> 
> What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.
> 
> There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
> .
Click to expand...

That's a fancy way of saying the welfare tax checks are needed for the *velocity of money.

In other words you don't want the 200 Billion a year that we have to borrow to pay out to go away.*


----------



## Mac1958

eagle1462010 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> More input........................explain...............
> 
> Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
> Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
> Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
Click to expand...

Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.

The amount we actually spend on "welfare" is tough to track down, because the OMB only has a category called "Income Security", which lumps together all kinds of payments such as retirement & disability insurance, federal employee retirement & DI, unemployment, a wide range of things.  

Yes, I'm fine with "welfare", as long as there is some kind of cultural commitment to ending knee-jerking towards victimization and this inter-generational dependence on "someone else".  Which we do not have.
.


----------



## Mac1958

eagle1462010 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.
> 
> What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.
> 
> There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a fancy way of saying the welfare tax checks are needed for the *velocity of money.  In other words you don't want the 200 Billion a year that we have to borrow to pay out to go away.*
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about regular, income-earning taxpayers who are incentivized to invest, not welfare recipients.
.


----------



## Mac1958

bear513 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activity that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The government shouldn't be deciding which investments are "positive" and which aren't.  The government almost never makes good decisions.  Whether the rich are willing to pay more is only one question.  Some are and some aren't.  The real issue is will society benefit by taking their income.  It won't.  The money taxed away would probably be invested in stocks or in their businesses.  All taxing the rich does is reduce economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the various tax deductions and credits work very well, and they absolutely do incentivize strategies that put more money in motion.
> 
> What benefits society is a subjective question.  Does a society benefit overall when those who lack the capacity (for any of a wide range of reasons) are provided a higher foundation, even at the expense of a certain amount of economic dynamism?  Yeah, I definitely think so.
> 
> There is obviously a tipping point there, and going too far in either direction is the problem.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mac, I am not a trained monkey who likes to do tricks and bores the he'll out of me during tax time.... I hate waiting in lines
> 
> Just tell me what I owe.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever your effective tax rate is.
.
.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Mac1958 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> More input........................explain...............
> 
> Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
> Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
> Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.
> 
> The amount we actually spend on "welfare" is tough to track down, because the OMB only has a category called "Income Security", which lumps together all kinds of payments such as retirement & disability insurance, federal employee retirement & DI, unemployment, a wide range of things.
> 
> Yes, I'm fine with "welfare", as long as there is some kind of cultural commitment to ending knee-jerking towards victimization and this inter-generational dependence on "someone else".  Which we do not have.
> .
Click to expand...


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Just tell me what I owe.

Its boring as he'll, what do I look like a coupon clipper?

Not into scamming the system


----------



## Mac1958

bear513 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graduated income tax rates with deductions and credits incentivize a *wide* variety of positive, tax-advantaged investment and economic activities that manifest on both national and local levels, and both for individuals and corporations.  A flat tax would eliminate all of that positive activity.
> 
> Personally, I think we should poll "the rich" on this.  I have many advisory clients who are worth seven figures and several worth eight figures.  It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that a vast majority of them are perfectly comfortable paying graduated rates, and that even *adding* a couple of new, *higher* margins would not cause them to become suicidal or damage the economy.
> 
> What some guy screams on the radio is one thing, real life is another.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> More input........................explain...............
> 
> Are you saying the welfare checks of over 200 Billion a year should remain?
> Are you referring to the tax write offs to Charities......................
> Are you referring to them spending more money to write it off for tax purposes........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, write-offs including charities, mortgage interest rate (especially), corporate capital costs, muni/treasury bonds, a zillion of them.
> 
> The amount we actually spend on "welfare" is tough to track down, because the OMB only has a category called "Income Security", which lumps together all kinds of payments such as retirement & disability insurance, federal employee retirement & DI, unemployment, a wide range of things.
> 
> Yes, I'm fine with "welfare", as long as there is some kind of cultural commitment to ending knee-jerking towards victimization and this inter-generational dependence on "someone else".  Which we do not have.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Just tell me what I owe.
> 
> Its boring as he'll, what do I look like a coupon clipper?
> 
> Not into scamming the system
Click to expand...

Well, that's what your tax guy is for.
.


----------



## my2¢

I recommend we go back to the original 7 tax brackets and rates of the 1913 income tax and adjust for inflation:
1.0% $0 - $463,826
2.0% $463,827 - $1,159,566
3.0% $1,159,567 - $1,739,348
4.0% $1,739,349 - $2,319,131
5.0% $2,319,132 - $5,797,828
6.0% $5,797,829 - $11,595,657
7.0% $11,595,658 -


----------



## Desperado

No.... Everyone and I mean everyone should pay the same percentage. It is the only fair way to do it.
Everyone has a stake in this country, so everyone should contribute, no matter if you only make a dollar or if you make a billion dollars, everyone pays.


----------



## Political Junky

Absolutely, they should pay more.


----------



## eagle1462010

We need a simple plan.................

KISS.......................

Keep It Simple Stupid...............

Simplifying the code makes it harder to con it, and easier to figure your bottom line.  I made x amount of money, and I pay y amount of taxes............

The Simpler the better...........in business taxation it still comes down to receipts versus expenses.


----------



## bripat9643

Political Junky said:


> Absolutely, they should pay more.



Why should we all get looted more?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Tax season is such a waste of time, only liberals love it and the rich to see how much they can scam the system or any other boring ass person trying to find a receipt so they can save $25 bucks.

I don't care if I got ripped off get me out of H.R. block.


----------



## bripat9643

eagle1462010 said:


> We need a simple plan.................
> 
> KISS.......................
> 
> Keep It Simple Stupid...............
> 
> Simplifying the code makes it harder to con it, and easier to figure your bottom line.  I made x amount of money, and I pay y amount of taxes............
> 
> The Simpler the better...........in business taxation it still comes down to receipts versus expenses.



The only way to do that is get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption based tax.


----------



## eagle1462010

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
Click to expand...

Because to them there will never be enough taxation, and never be too much Gov't.
We took in 3.1 TRILLION DOLLARS last year and it's still not enough..........And that is more than the GDP's of nations around the world today.

It's ridiculous....................


----------



## Stephanie

I guess so much for we are EQUAL in this country eh? Why anyone they deem "RICH" would want to stay here and invest their monies? Can't blame them for leaving when you have wolves like Bernie, Hillary and their cult followers wanting to take what isn't there's from them


----------



## Katzndogz

The rich already pay most of the taxes.  The poor pay none.


----------



## eagle1462010

bripat9643 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a simple plan.................
> 
> KISS.......................
> 
> Keep It Simple Stupid...............
> 
> Simplifying the code makes it harder to con it, and easier to figure your bottom line.  I made x amount of money, and I pay y amount of taxes............
> 
> The Simpler the better...........in business taxation it still comes down to receipts versus expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to do that is get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption based tax.
Click to expand...

It could be done either way..........but the consumption based tax would be the simplest form of it........Under business taxes it will still have to have many rules and regs for filing..................But it doesn't need to be the 70 k pages we have today..............

It needs an overhaul to the code even if we don't go to a different system.


----------



## Stephanie

Political Junky said:


> Absolutely, they should pay more.



too bad your rich Democrats don't. Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity


----------



## Political Junky

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
Click to expand...

I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.


----------



## Political Junky

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad your rich Democrats don't. *Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity*
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Political Junky said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad your rich Democrats don't. *Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Knowing you, probably bought Bill Clinton's used shorts and wearing them as you post.


----------



## Political Junky

bear513 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad your rich Democrats don't. *Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you, probably bought Bill Clinton's used shorts and wearing them as you post.
Click to expand...

No link, meaning you just make shit up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
Click to expand...


So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have several tax rates, I don't follow you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have one rate under a flat tax.
> 
> You can simplify the tax system without eliminating the progressive tax brackets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you want the same tax rate we have now an a added national sales tax? I am confused.
> 
> Listening to a neighbor and trying to follow this thread at the same time.
Click to expand...


Let your neighbors have sex in peace.  

1.  the complexity of our tax system is all about the complex process of figuring out how much taxable income you have.

2.  With a flat tax, presumably, that complexity is eliminated because your tax is calculated off your gross income.  No need for pages of calculations to get to your taxable income.. 

3.  You can apply the flat tax to your gross income, or you can apply 3 or 4 different rates to that income, by brackets,

with the same simplicity.  The tax tables currently make all those calculations for you.


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

He never said that.............he just showing the percentages and how much more they pay for a given percentage.................It's an area people like you usually ignore...............

You always bring up the percentage a poor person pays, or middle class pays and refuse to see the dollar amount of the higher income levels pay for the same percentage...................

You want the system to stay like it is, and want a VAT to boot if you are in your normal mode.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Seriously don't you think everyone should pay into federal taxes to be players /voters in the game?

Otherwise it becomes anarchary .


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He never said that.............he just showing the percentages and how much more they pay for a given percentage.................It's an area people like you usually ignore...............
> 
> You always bring up the percentage a poor person pays, or middle class pays and refuse to see the dollar amount of the higher income levels pay for the same percentage...................
> 
> You want the system to stay like it is, and want a VAT to boot if you are in your normal mode.
Click to expand...


You're an asshole in every mode.  I've never said I supported a VAT tax.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously don't you think everyone should pay into federal taxes to be players /voters in the game?
> 
> Otherwise it becomes anarchary .
Click to expand...


I think if the voters want low income Americans to pay very low or even no taxes,

so be it.


----------



## Stephanie

Political Junky said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad your rich Democrats don't. *Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you, probably bought Bill Clinton's used shorts and wearing them as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No link, meaning you just make shit up.
Click to expand...


don't give me crap. you can use Google. You just want to dismiss it like you do everything for a sleezy Democrat


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay 30%, they should pay 30%.  Ben Carson made sense there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your 30% is $3 bucks
> 
> And
> 
> A rich guys 30% is $300,000,000 dollars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want a tax system where everyone, rich and poor, pays the same dollar amount annually?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously don't you think everyone should pay into federal taxes to be players /voters in the game?
> 
> Otherwise it becomes anarchary .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think if the voters want low income Americans to pay very low or even no taxes,
> 
> so be it.
Click to expand...

 all I am asking for is a measly dollar so they know they have a game in it.

But that could be considered a poll tax.

*Sigh*

Which I don't want that.


----------



## Rozman

Hey you want folks to pay higher taxes and have government spend more.....
You know who to go to for that.....
Vote Democrat right down the line come election day and walk away from the polling site feeling so good about yourself
because you stuck it to those rich fuckers......

Oh by the way those evil rich bastards have been footing the bill for some time now....
And they never seem to pay enough do they.....


----------



## 2aguy

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.




No.  We should all pay about 10-15% with everyone getting 40-50,000 tax free.  That would be fair and the rich would still pay more....or, we get rid of the income tax and go to a sales tax, the rich would still pay more.....

You need to learn to deal with your envy, hate and jealousy, it will eat you up.


----------



## 2aguy

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.




And you make some pretty big assumptions about the rich and what they do or don't do with their money...more rich people give more to charity than most people do......


----------



## rightwinger

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
Click to expand...


Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist

Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally


----------



## 2aguy

So....you want to take that money from the people who actually worked and earned it, and give it to politicians who didn't earn it and will use it to benefit themselves and their corporate friends, the very corporations you guys always say you hate.  You complain about the corporations getting breaks and getting deals, who do you think gives them their deals.....the politicians who you want to give more tax money to so they can become even more powerful......Why would you want to give more money to the people screwing up the country?  Can you explain that?

And of course you say you want them to use the money to help people....but they don't, only a tiny fraction ever gets to anyone in need, while the rest goes to the very corporations that you hate...right?  Do you think about what you want before you post this stuff?


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure




No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.


----------



## 2aguy

Political Junky said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad your rich Democrats don't. *Billy and Hillary wrote off his used underwear they gave to charity*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing you, probably bought Bill Clinton's used shorts and wearing them as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No link, meaning you just make shit up.
Click to expand...



Nothing said about clinton is made up...he is a racist, and a rapist...and he used his used under wear for a tax break......

Bill Clinton Underwear Imitate the president Deduct your underwear - tribunedigital-baltimoresun


I first discovered this about eight months ago, when it was disclosed that while governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton would donate his used shorts to Salvation Army or Goodwill resale shops and take a $4 tax deduction for each pair.

And it has since been revealed that he gave away long underwear and valued it for tax purposes at $12 per long john. (I don't know if they were with or without back flaps, or whether it matters.)


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
Click to expand...


The entire infrastructure was built for one need and one need only....for national defense...

What the commoner got was a perk.

You do know that don't you?


----------



## Stephanie

Poor Matt and a lot of the Democrat cult followers has a mean case of the Green eyed Monster. but why wouldn't they when that's all their party spew down on them. Classic Class Warfare,  while they KEEP all their Rich's and Millions in the BANK


----------



## Rozman

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
Click to expand...


And that's why taxes are paid.....
Who has a problem with any of that?


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
Click to expand...


We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves


----------



## 2aguy

A flat tax with a 50,000 dollar exemption for the everyone, or a national sales tax would actually be fair to everyone....but the left is not interested in being fair.  They don't care how much each person pays, they hate how much the rich have left after they pay their taxes....that burns their asses everytime they think about how much the rich have left.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
Click to expand...



What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
Click to expand...



Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.


----------



## Sonny Clark

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire infrastructure was built for one need and one need only....for national defense...
> 
> What the commoner got was a perk.
> 
> You do know that don't you?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Misty

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


You are free to give the government all your money. 

The rich already carry the load for this country and they already pay more than their fair share. 

The government has to stop depending on the people's money to feed their spending habit.


----------



## Desperado

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
Click to expand...


Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes


----------



## Contumacious

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.





*THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN , SHOULD THE POOR BE PENALIZED FOR BEING LAZY ASS MOTHERFUCKERS?*


*BUT STUPID FUCKS LIKE YOU PREFER TO STAY HOME, WATCH TV AND VOTE FOR DEMAGOGUES LIKE COMRADE BERNARD SANDERS.*


.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Desperado said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
Click to expand...

Well, states do get federal money for bridges and some highways. I'm not sure what the subsidy is called, but I can look it up if need be.


----------



## occupied

Misty said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to give the government all your money.
> 
> The rich already carry the load for this country and they already pay more than their fair share.
> 
> The government has to stop depending on the people's money to feed their spending habit.
Click to expand...

Trickle down has to work one way or another.


----------



## Stephanie

Desperado said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
Click to expand...


we can't seem to get that through these Democrat voters heads. there never is enough TAXES on us no matter what class of people they lump us all in.


----------



## Kondor3

Yep.

A flat tax would probably take care of that.


----------



## occupied

Stephanie said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> 
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we can't seem to get that through these Democrat voters heads. there never is enough TAXES on us no matter what class of people they lump us all in.
Click to expand...

All the red states attempted to make up for their budget shortfalls during the recession by bumping up all the taxes and fees paid by the working class while giving deep tax cuts to the "job creators". Tax recepts are coming back up but they will never roll back those tax hikes. Republicans don't hate taxes, they just want to shift them mostly onto people who are barely getting by.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
Click to expand...



So what you're telling me is that we don't need those critical supplies and finished products, only corporate America does?  

Without corporate America bringing in those goods, where would you buy your food and beer at?  How about paint and plumbing supplies?   How about that Big Mac you ate for lunch the other day?  

What we use our roads for benefits only us.  What corporations use the roads for benefits corporate America and us.  In short, those roads benefit us all equally.


----------



## Stephanie

Sonny Clark said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> 
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, states do get federal money for bridges and some highways. I'm not sure what the subsidy is called, but I can look it up if need be.
Click to expand...


Its called a frekken Federal Gas TAX. but yet they never have ENOUGH to keep up with Infrastructure. so their solution. TAX us more or steal it from those they deem RICH


----------



## Sonny Clark

HOW ARE YOUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT?

(1) Building mosques on foreign soil
(2) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists
(3) Senseless deadly costly wars
(4) The care and support of illegal immigrants
(5) Excessive military spending
(6) No-bid government contracts ( Halliburton and GE )
(7) Wasteful foreign aid ( give-aways to foreign governments )
(8) Paying bribes to North Korea and Iran
(9) Subsidy for Brazilian corn crops
(10) Exploring the far reaches of the universe and looking for water on the surface of Mars
(11) Senseless wasteful projects such as "The Fence"
(12) Excessive government travel
(13) Lavish vacations for the Obamas, and lavish White House parties
(14) Interest paid on the national debt ( the government put us there )
(15) Medicare and Medicaid fraud and corruption
(16) Subsidizing Obamacare ( ACA )
(17) Government assistance programs
(18) The perks and benefits given to member of Congress for doing NOTHING
(19) The largest prison population in the world
(20) Providing a massive number of federal agents and personnel to handle the illegal immigration issues
(21) The failed war on illegal drugs
(22) Supporting foreign militaries
(23) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
Click to expand...


Which is where leftists make the same mistake. 

What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?  

I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.  

In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
> 
> What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
> 
> I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
> 
> In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
Click to expand...


I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
> 
> What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
> 
> I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
> 
> In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
Click to expand...


If they do with one less Hummer, then the guy who makes Hummers is out of a job.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
Click to expand...

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes


----------



## BluesLegend

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Thinking is not your strong suit, the rich already pay higher taxes and the rich already pay the majority of taxes. So much for your hate the rich thread. You should pen a thank you note to the rich.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
Click to expand...


Reagan benefitted from a momentary economic spike. But once that spike ended, the lowered tax rate remained........resulting in almost tripling the national debt


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
> 
> What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
> 
> I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
> 
> In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.
Click to expand...


Correct which is what they thought in the big union days.  We can just keep taking from the rich because they won't miss it and have plenty left in that pile of money of theirs.  

I guess that's why all our jobs are overseas today.  The left won't blame their policies, they blame the rich guy for wanting to be rich.  From the leftist point of view, wanting to keep your wealth is greedy, but taking wealth that isn't yours is not.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
Click to expand...


Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan benefitted from a momentary economic spike. But once that spike ended, the lowered tax rate remained........resulting in almost tripling the national debt
Click to expand...



ROLF!  Yeah, it was pure coincidence that the "momentary economic spike" occured during the Reagan administration.  The fact that his policies have never been tried since doesn't have a thing to do with it!


----------



## BluesLegend

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan benefitted from a momentary economic spike. But once that spike ended, the lowered tax rate remained........resulting in almost tripling the national debt
Click to expand...


Are you lying or just ignorant? The Democrat controlled congress promised to cut spending to keep that from happening, shocker they lied and didn't do it.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
Click to expand...

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it. 

Starving the beast does not work


----------



## Mac1958

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.

"That's socialism", he said, and I quote.

What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.

But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
Click to expand...


Oh really?  What happened during the "sequester"?"  A minute cut in spending, that was even proposed by Obama, and numskulls like you acted like it was the end of the world.


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .



A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.

Apparently Carson is smarter than you.


----------



## blackhawk

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.


----------



## Mac1958

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
Click to expand...

A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
.


----------



## BluesLegend

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What happened during the "sequester"?"  A minute cut in spending, that was even proposed by Obama, and numskulls like you acted like it was the end of the world.
Click to expand...


Yeah I thought the sky was supposed to fall due to sequester what happened?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

The lefts ignorance in this thread is staggering.


----------



## BluesLegend

Democrats want slavery, some things never change. In this case slavery to government where government controls the wealth and whips you with fines and jail if you get uppity.


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
Click to expand...


Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.


----------



## Mac1958

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.
Click to expand...

That's not what socialism is.  It's public ownership and control of *the means of production.*

So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
.


----------



## Contumacious

blackhawk said:


> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.





*A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what socialism is.  It's public ownership and control of *the means of production.*
> 
> So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
> .
Click to expand...


Ownership is only important because it means control.  Having control without ownership has the exact same end result.  Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.


----------



## BluesLegend

blackhawk said:


> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.



^^^ Holy shit man the post of the day, BINGO!! Baltimore got over $1 billion dollars in stimulus money from Obama. Guess how much the poor got for jobs training...$3 million. Guess where the money actually went? Yes right in the pockets of the Democratic party public employee unions so they could kick money back to Democratic party candidates, shocker.


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
Click to expand...

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
Click to expand...


Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
Click to expand...



*WELL , WE CONCUR.*

*THE DEMAGOGUE POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT THE WELFARE STATE DO GET HELP, POWER AND PRESTIGE.*

*ASK COMRADE SANDERS.*


.


----------



## Papageorgio

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Several millionaires donate money to charities. I have dealt with many foundations and without the rich, they would never survive. I don't buy that millionaires are selfish. 

There are those that don't give but they can be poor or rich. I find the government to be very greedy.


----------



## Mac1958

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what socialism is.  It's public ownership and control of *the means of production.*
> 
> So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership is only important because it means control.  Having control without ownership has the exact same end result.  Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.  

All of those things are "socialist".

And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
.


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what socialism is.  It's public ownership and control of *the means of production.*
> 
> So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership is only important because it means control.  Having control without ownership has the exact same end result.  Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.
> 
> All of those things are "socialist".
> 
> And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, they are socialist.  I agree with that assessment.


----------



## Contumacious

Mac1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what socialism is.  It's public ownership and control of *the means of production.*
> 
> So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership is only important because it means control.  Having control without ownership has the exact same end result.  Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.
> 
> All of those things are "socialist".
> 
> And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
> .
Click to expand...




*IT IS CORRECT THAT A HEAVY GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS ONE OF THE PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.*

*CARSON IS NOT  A LIBERTARIAN.*


.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
Click to expand...


A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
Click to expand...



You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
Click to expand...


Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...



Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder
Click to expand...



It is when the corrupt politicians steal, waste, or lose the money they are supposed to be spending wisely......


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense to cut taxes first
All it does is add debt. 

Cut both at once


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
Click to expand...

Reagan escalated spending on the military


----------



## Rozman

Why is it every five minutes give or take a minute the left wants to raise taxes?
We never see them put forth any demand that we look at government spending.
They don't think there might be a way to cut out any wasteful spending or a way to 
better handle the money that the government already takes in.

Their only proposal is to take in more revenue and spend it just as fast.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder
Click to expand...

Wrong. Taxation is theft.  No one has ever demonstrated any moral difference between them.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, supposedly, do pay more.  In fact, we must make that so.
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head.  They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........
> 
> Unless you just don't want to look there.
> 
> The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........
> 
> The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.
Click to expand...



*As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.*







As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
Click to expand...


They should pay 11% of all income taxes.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, supposedly, do pay more.  In fact, we must make that so.
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head.  They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........
> 
> Unless you just don't want to look there.
> 
> The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........
> 
> The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

You can blame mass immigration from Mexico and India for that.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
Click to expand...


The BIG LIE makes an apprentice. Shocking

*The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts*


*The Pinocchio Test*
 It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

 Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. *Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did. *

 If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place






The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Taxation is theft.  No one has ever demonstrated any moral difference between them.
Click to expand...


Taxation without representation


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
Click to expand...


"*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should pay 11% of all income taxes.
Click to expand...



Yes, since income taxes are 100% of fed revenues *shaking head*


----------



## rightwinger

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
> 
> 
> Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
Click to expand...



So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, supposedly, do pay more.  In fact, we must make that so.
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head.  They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........
> 
> Unless you just don't want to look there.
> 
> The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........
> 
> The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can blame mass immigration from Mexico and India for that.
Click to expand...



lol, Sure Bubba, sure...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
Click to expand...


Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending


----------



## rightwinger

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.


Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
> 
> 
> Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending
Click to expand...



I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government.    If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.

Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
Click to expand...



Yes, we were facing an aggressive 
Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
> 
> 
> Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government.    If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.
> 
> Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.
Click to expand...

What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
Click to expand...


Actually, they had been collapsing for 30 years
By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet military was old, antiquated and poorly staffed


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good compromise to me.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
> 
> 
> Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government.    If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.
> 
> Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?
Click to expand...


Nothing, so long as I don't have to pay for it.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they had been collapsing for 30 years
> By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet military was old, antiquated and poorly staffed
Click to expand...


That's not what all the Marxist professors were saying.  They agreed with Khrushchev that the USSR was going to bury us.


----------



## Dad2three

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.



"I think"

No you don't! 

EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
Click to expand...




*YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*


*ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*


*ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*

*THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*

*YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
Click to expand...



He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
Click to expand...


Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
Click to expand...


The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
Click to expand...


the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
Click to expand...


Stupid, if you asked me.  The federal government turned into exactly the thing they feared the most.


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
Click to expand...




*DINGLEBERRY, SAH*


*THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*


*THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*


*ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*


*.*


.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
Click to expand...

Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
Click to expand...



You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird

YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.
Click to expand...

Carter decimated the military and handed our allies over to the communists.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
Click to expand...


Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan escalated spending on the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.  that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
Click to expand...


CARTER? lol, IGNORE everything else (like Vietnam) and the previous 40+ years of US policy that was containment, nope it was SuperRonnie, lol


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
Click to expand...



*OF COURSE I DO.*


*FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*


*Next question, please.*


.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter decimated the military and handed our allies over to the communists.
Click to expand...

Far from it
In fact, by the 70s and 80s our military built to Cold War doctrine was obsolete
Investing in more Cold War equipment would have been wasted


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid, if you asked me.  The federal government turned into exactly the thing they feared the most.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean like when we elect guys who think "GOV'T IS THE PROBLEM" (THINK ANY GOPer for 20+ years and Reagan) and then they get in and prove it?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter decimated the military and handed our allies over to the communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> In fact, by the 70s and 80s our military built to Cold War doctrine was obsolete
> Investing in more Cold War equipment would have been wasted
Click to expand...


Reagan was elected in 1980, moron.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
Click to expand...



Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we were facing an aggressive
> Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter decimated the military and handed our allies over to the communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> In fact, by the 70s and 80s our military built to Cold War doctrine was obsolete
> Investing in more Cold War equipment would have been wasted
Click to expand...




*INCORRECT*


*WAR PROFITEERS , AND OTHER PARASITES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ,ie, KBR , HALLIBURTON < WANTED MORE.*


.


----------



## excalibur

The "rich" already pay the vast bulk of taxes.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
Click to expand...


What choice did they have once it was established?


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
Click to expand...




*YEP, FOR GENERATIONS.*


.


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways 

We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
Click to expand...


Maybe I missed something because this is my first day here.  But what Republicans ever advocated everybody enlist in our military?


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING THERE.*
> 
> 
> *ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD ENLIST IN THE MILITARY AND GO TO AFPAK*
> 
> 
> *ALL DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO VENEZUELA.*
> 
> *THEN THE US WILL AGAIN BE THE LIBERTARIAN PARADISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED.*
> 
> *YEP, THAT'S THE TICKET.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YEP, FOR GENERATIONS.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


MORE opinions from the side that has historically been on the wrong side of history about 90%+ of the time. Thanks anyways


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
Click to expand...

'

Your claims about effective tax rates are entirely unsubstantiated.  What is the source of the data for the graphs?  I'm sure once we learn that it will be obvious that's it's totally made up.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bear513 said:


> You go first the IRS accepts donations



Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).


----------



## Dad2three

excalibur said:


> The "rich" already pay the vast bulk of taxes.




BZZZ wrong. You mean the top 10% who TAKE almost  50% of federal income pay about 70% of federal INCOME taxes which is less than 50% of federal revenues?


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
Click to expand...


What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians fetishists. The Founders TRIED that thing called the Articles of Confederation (strong state rights over federal Gov't) and yet somehow chose to change to the Constitution (strong fed Gov't). Weird right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
Click to expand...


THEY established it right?


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
Click to expand...



*MR FUCKTARD*

*YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*


*NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*


.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
Click to expand...



Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DINGLEBERRY, SAH*
> 
> 
> *THE CONSTITUTION CREATED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OVER A FEW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS - IE, COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND THE INDIAN TRIBES - ANY TRANSACTIONS DEALING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS*
> 
> 
> *THAT'S IS IT, FOLKS.*
> 
> 
> *ANYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN USURPED.*
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
Click to expand...


What's your point, moron?


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think"
> 
> No you don't!
> 
> EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so the SCOTUS has been wrong for generations? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point, moron?
Click to expand...


YOU said 

"What choice did they have once it was established?"

Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
Click to expand...


Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has.  SCOTUS is just a tool of the government.  The idea that it would ever rule against in increase in Federal Power is virtually incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU said
> 
> "What choice did they have once it was established?"
> 
> Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
Click to expand...


Yes, I did say that.  So?


----------



## Wry Catcher

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



Damn, you really don't get it.  A simple flat tax allows a middle class family to keep approximately $45,000 and a professional baseball player making the major league minimum a little over $450,000; and Mitt Romney, Soros, gates billions - in ten years we would have two classes, the very very rich and the rest of us.

Simple solutions to complex issues are rarely thought out, pragmatic or viable, especially in a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
Click to expand...


WE didn't have one until 1914.

The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The marginal rate in those days was 95%.  However, the effective rate was much much lower, probably no worse than today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
Click to expand...




*OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION, *

*NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.*

.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
Click to expand...




Yeah, the debt ISN'T because the GOP gutted taxes AS they blew up spending (see Ronnie, Dubya, 2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion that disallows Gov't negotiating meds cost). It's "spending programs".... Hint SS/Medicare are self funding AND are owed in excess of $3+ trillion!


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
Click to expand...


The smart R's did, along with the Democrats.  The ones' you call RINOs.

The Dumb R's, the one's we call neo cons, supported the war against Saddam and today support a war against Iran.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU said
> 
> "What choice did they have once it was established?"
> 
> Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did say that.  So?
Click to expand...



Moron, what choice did the ones who created the SCOTUS have? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Wry Catcher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really don't get it.  A simple flat tax allows a middle class family to keep approximately $45,000 and a professional baseball player making the major league minimum a little over $450,000; and Mitt Romney, Soros, gates billions - in ten years we would have two classes, the very very rich and the rest of us.
> 
> Simple solutions to complex issues are rarely thought out, pragmatic or viable, especially in a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.
Click to expand...


*"Simple solutions to complex issues are rarely thought out, pragmatic or viable, especially in a nation of the people, by the people and for the people."*


Yet are the favs of the low informed (think GOP base). Weird


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
Click to expand...


So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.  

But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things? 

For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own? 

Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?  

How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE didn't have one until 1914.
> 
> The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.
Click to expand...


So NO, you can't name a modern economy without a federal reserve. Thanks anyways!


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION, *
> 
> *NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The US?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't
> 
> It is just helping people who need help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder
Click to expand...


If they are raising revenue that will benefit most all people.  But taking money from one to give to another is theft.  Theft is the action of taking ones property against their will.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What choice did they have once it was established?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU said
> 
> "What choice did they have once it was established?"
> 
> Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did say that.  So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, what choice did the ones who created the SCOTUS have? lol
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that I (or anyone) follow your line of reasoning.  Before they ratified the Constitution, they had a choice.  After they ratified it, they had no choice, short of secession.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
Click to expand...


Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive


----------



## LeftofLeft

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Click to expand...

 
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
Click to expand...



*Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *


Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.



*.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *

_The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith




*Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*

So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.

Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service


* Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *

*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*

*With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEY established it right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU said
> 
> "What choice did they have once it was established?"
> 
> Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did say that.  So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron, what choice did the ones who created the SCOTUS have? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that I (or anyone) follow your line of reasoning.  Before they ratified the Constitution, they had a choice.  After they ratified it, they had no choice, short of secession.
Click to expand...



WOW...

The guys who created SCOTUS (in the Constitution) had no choice? You mean they made a mistake and regretted it? SOURCE? lol


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
Click to expand...



The "job creators" don't buy, they invest. How do we tax them?


----------



## NYcarbineer

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
Click to expand...


A consumption tax discourages purchases.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
Click to expand...



"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, *in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*." Noted Socialist Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations



"The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. *Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort.* The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market ... Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes." 
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
Click to expand...



So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....


----------



## Dad2three

BluesLegend said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
> 
> Starving the beast does not work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What happened during the "sequester"?"  A minute cut in spending, that was even proposed by Obama, and numskulls like you acted like it was the end of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I thought the sky was supposed to fall due to sequester what happened?
Click to expand...


As MOST economists agreed, it slowed the recovery from the hole Dubya/GOP left US!


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign.  While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
> 
> "That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
> 
> What the fuck?  Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism.  Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
> 
> But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization.  So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd?  And why would anyone buy that statement?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
> 
> Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, *in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*." Noted Socialist Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> "The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. *Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort.* The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market ... Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes."
> -President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President
Click to expand...



And what was the tax rate back then.....?  Stossle had a guy on and he pointed out the tax rate before the revolution was 1-2% and we started shooting British soldiers when it went to 3% so if you want to take the tax rate on all Americans back to 2%.....I support your efforts.

Oh...and nice quoting the biggest socialist President till obama.....FDR was an asshole........I didn't notice him handing over all his wealth to the government when he died......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
Click to expand...


Not if other taxes were eliminated.  If you cash your paycheck and every dollar is yours, you will be inclined to spend it; it's more money in your pocket.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ray From Cleveland said:


> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .



Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,

and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.

I don't think that's so.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
Click to expand...



And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
Click to expand...


'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
Click to expand...



No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ray From Cleveland said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if other taxes were eliminated.  If you cash your paycheck and every dollar is yours, you will be inclined to spend it; it's more money in your pocket.
Click to expand...


It's not more money in your pocket because everything costs more.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
Click to expand...


Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world

ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Click to expand...



Says a twit who thinks that giving more and more money to the very politicians you bitch and moan about every day giving tax breaks to the rich, as if giving them more money will mean they will give fewer tax breaks....what is it with you guys and wanting to give your money to guys in Washington who will just spend it on themselves and their friends......how does that make sense to you guys....?

Can any of you guys explain that dynamic?


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
Click to expand...



And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
> 
> What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
> 
> I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
> 
> In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.
Click to expand...



Yes, we see how "supply side" has worked the past 30+ years for the "working man". Bottom 90% has been stagnant. Hmm


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Click to expand...



Yes.....your true colors have come out....



> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.



You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
Click to expand...


Fairness is more than a math measurement.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
Click to expand...


The 'state' is here by the will of the People.  You can always move to a country where the 'state' is of negligible consequence,

if you can find such a place.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, they should pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we all get looted more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
> 
> What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
> 
> I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes.  The rich are our employers and producers.  They make that money up elsewhere.  They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
> 
> In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat.  They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant.  That only works in the movies.  Real life doesn't work that way.  In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we see how "supply side" has worked the past 30+ years for the "working man". Bottom 90% has been stagnant. Hmm
Click to expand...



Nope, that problem came from politicians spending 18 trillion dollars that didn't belong to them, and took that money out of the economy for waste, fraud and abuse at the federal level.........supply side hasn't been allowed to work....supply side simply means you spend the money you earn the way you want, not letting a politician spend it on themselves and their friends.....

and not one answer as to why it is good to give politicians more and more money as they spend more and more on themselves and their friends......


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
Click to expand...


BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
Click to expand...



In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...


Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
Click to expand...



Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....

What fucking sense does that make?


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
Click to expand...



lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too? 

Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
Click to expand...



Don't need a graduated income tax, flat tax or sales tax........and then you don't have to worry about politicians giving tax breaks to anyone....problem solved....


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
Click to expand...



Progressive tax rates and policies freeze people into poverty...for ever....moron.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
Click to expand...



Obama is taking us back to the 3rd world, don't you worry.  Excessive taxes is how 3rd world crap holes stay 3rd world crap holes...the government takes everything from the individual, and leave them poor...that is what you morons want.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A consumption tax discourages purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
Click to expand...


You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird


Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17% 

HMM


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
Click to expand...



Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is taking us back to the 3rd world, don't you worry.  Excessive taxes is how 3rd world crap holes stay 3rd world crap holes...the government takes everything from the individual, and leave them poor...that is what you morons want.
Click to expand...



MORE right wing garbage. SHOCKING



See how the EFFECTIVE tax rates paid by the "job creators" has shrunk? How has the Bottom 90% done since?


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
Click to expand...


You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)

You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?

Your fantasy worlds is BS

Dems stopped Dubya? lol


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
*Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is taking us back to the 3rd world, don't you worry.  Excessive taxes is how 3rd world crap holes stay 3rd world crap holes...the government takes everything from the individual, and leave them poor...that is what you morons want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. SHOCKING
> 
> 
> 
> See how the EFFECTIVE tax rates paid by the "job creators" has shrunk? How has the Bottom 90% done since?
Click to expand...



Government spending and regulation kills off job growth not people keeping their own money, how about showing the growth of the federal government in the same time period moron.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
> 
> You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
> 
> Your fantasy worlds is BS
> 
> Dems stopped Dubya? lol
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> 2004 Republican Convention:
> 
> Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
> ...
> 
> Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
> 
> What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
> 
> Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
> 
> In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
> 
> 
> Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> *Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> *Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
> *Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
> 
> 
> *But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...



Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
> 
> ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
Click to expand...


No,  Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves


In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. *By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.*

No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

*Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


*Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." *

*Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*

*Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


----------



## 2aguy

Yeah....another lefty liar on the site....

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the _Times_ edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of theClinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The _Times_ itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the _Times_, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
> 
> You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
> 
> Your fantasy worlds is BS
> 
> Dems stopped Dubya? lol
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> 2004 Republican Convention:
> 
> Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
> ...
> 
> Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
> 
> What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
> 
> Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
> 
> In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
> 
> 
> Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> *Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> *Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
> *Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
> 
> 
> *But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....
Click to expand...




LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!

Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier


FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899

*ELECT GUYS WHO "DON'T BELIEVE IN" GOV'T, THEN SHOCKED IT FAILS UNDER THEM? Only in a conservative world!!!*


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
> 
> 
> In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
> 
> The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. *By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.*
> 
> No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> *Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> *Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." *
> 
> *Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*
> 
> *Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*
Click to expand...



Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts did increase tax revenue and on top of that, tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves, government needs to cut it's spending since that is our money, not governments.....you lefties have created the false premise that we need to justify keeping the money we earn....one of the great lies you have managed to push into the beliefs of the American people...no more.....


----------



## 2aguy

Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....


----------



## 2aguy

Yes...keeping taxes low stimulates and economy.....if the government doesn't spend every penny they get and then spend even more till we have 18 trillion in debt...

Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

*The tax cuts of the 1920s*

The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

*The Kennedy tax cuts*
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

*The Reagan tax cuts*
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle.* If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.*


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Yeah....another lefty liar on the site....
> 
> The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator
> 
> There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the _Times_ edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of theClinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The _Times_ itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the _Times_, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?




LOL, SERIOUSLY? AEI TALKING POINTS? IF Gov't forced F/F why did the Banksters settle with Gov't to the tune of tens of billions in fines? lol



Weird THIS Peter Wallison wrote that?

*4.* *Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash*: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


In the words of* (AEI's)  Peter Wallison in 2004:* “*In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”*


*No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*

*1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom*: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

*2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:*


*3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it*: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.


lol


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
Click to expand...


Conservatives want to take US back to third world nations? What third world nation has a strong middle class and economic policies fertile for small business entrepreneurship? Most small business owners don't buy the "you didn't build that" mantra from the side that does not understand economic risk. A small business owner builds with his/her risk. An infrastructure risk economically speaking is borne by and distributed among taxpayers. If it fails, taxpayers are simply called to fund another infrastructure project. Hardly third world thinking.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Yes...keeping taxes low stimulates and economy.....if the government doesn't spend every penny they get and then spend even more till we have 18 trillion in debt...
> 
> Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
> 
> *The tax cuts of the 1920s*
> 
> The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
> 
> *The Kennedy tax cuts*
> Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
> 
> *The Reagan tax cuts*
> The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
> 
> Harmful Spending & Complexity
> Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle.* If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.*



YET, Gutted revenues with ALL 3 tax cuts. Weird. And you ONLY are looking at INCOME tax shares which is less than half of fed revenues, oh right ANOTHER Heritage Foundation slight of hand, lol


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....




And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *
> 
> _The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*
> 
> So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. * But one thing is certain:  They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege.  *Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
> 
> Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> *If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on *— and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not —* it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*
> 
> *With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.* Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.  It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he?  So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....your true colors have come out....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
> 
> Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives want to take US back to third world nations? What third world nation has a strong middle class and economic policies fertile for small business entrepreneurship? Most small business owners don't buy the "you didn't build that" mantra from the side that does not understand economic risk. A small business owner builds with his/her risk. An infrastructure risk economically speaking is borne by and distributed among taxpayers. If it fails, taxpayers are simply called to fund another infrastructure project. Hardly third world thinking.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean FANTASY conservative policy? Sorry lets get REAL, conservative policy of 30+ years has NOT been to benefit the society in general, middle class or poor. Hint


----------



## Rozman

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending.  Or, both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
> 
> 
> Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government.    If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.
> 
> Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?
Click to expand...


Using taxpayers money to pay for it...


----------



## Contumacious

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION, *
> 
> *NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US?
Click to expand...



*WELL, IT DEPEND HOW YOU DEFINE "SURVIVAL"*

*AFTER THE US DECLARED BANKRUPTCY IN 1935 WE BECAME A FASCISTIC NATION - THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DID NOT SURVIVE - WE LOST THE SCOTUS AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM*

* SO  AFTER ANOTHER ECONOMIC CALAMITY WE WILL SURVIVE IN THE SAME WAY SOMALIA IS SURVIVING - AND NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A SOCIALIST PRIME MINISTER LIKE COMRADE SANDERS IN CHARGE.*


.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
> 
> 
> In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
> 
> The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. *By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.*
> 
> No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> *Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> *Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." *
> 
> *Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*
> 
> *Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts did increase tax revenue and on top of that, tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves, government needs to cut it's spending since that is our money, not governments.....you lefties have created the false premise that we need to justify keeping the money we earn....one of the great lies you have managed to push into the beliefs of the American people...no more.....
Click to expand...



NO serious economist thinks a tax cut for 80+ years has been self funding, much less increase revenues from WHAT THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WITHOUT THE TAX CUT!!!! There IS a right AND left side to Laffers curve you know? lol


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
Click to expand...


Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.

Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.

Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION, *
> 
> *NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *WELL, IT DEPEND HOW YOU DEFINE "SURVIVAL"*
> 
> *AFTER THE US DECLARED BANKRUPTCY IN 1935 WE BECAME A FASCISTIC NATION - THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DID NOT SURVIVE - WE LOST THE SCOTUS AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM*
> 
> * SO  AFTER ANOTHER ECONOMIC CALAMITY WE WILL SURVIVE IN THE SAME WAY SOMALIA IS SURVIVING - AND NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A SOCIALIST PRIME MINISTER LIKE COMRADE SANDERS IN CHARGE.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Please shout a little louder, it might make this rant seem even less sane, which is a good thing.


----------



## Dad2three

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION, *
> 
> *NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *WELL, IT DEPEND HOW YOU DEFINE "SURVIVAL"*
> 
> *AFTER THE US DECLARED BANKRUPTCY IN 1935 WE BECAME A FASCISTIC NATION - THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DID NOT SURVIVE - WE LOST THE SCOTUS AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM*
> 
> * SO  AFTER ANOTHER ECONOMIC CALAMITY WE WILL SURVIVE IN THE SAME WAY SOMALIA IS SURVIVING - AND NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A SOCIALIST PRIME MINISTER LIKE COMRADE SANDERS IN CHARGE.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



lol. too funny bubs


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
Click to expand...


A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
> 
> YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE didn't have one until 1914.
> 
> The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.
Click to expand...


We didn't have _penicillin until 1928_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....?  The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid.  You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
> 
> What fucking sense does that make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
> 
> You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
> 
> Your fantasy worlds is BS
> 
> Dems stopped Dubya? lol
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> 2004 Republican Convention:
> 
> Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
> ...
> 
> Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
> 
> What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
> 
> Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
> 
> In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
> 
> 
> Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> *Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> *Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
> *Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
> 
> 
> *But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!
> 
> Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?
> 
> A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)
> 
> Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006
> 
> https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?
> 
> A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Click to expand...


*Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis*



*Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown*




*How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter*


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smart R's did, along with the Democrats.  The ones' you call RINOs.
> 
> The Dumb R's, the one's we call neo cons, supported the war against Saddam and today support a war against Iran.
Click to expand...


Almost all those spending programs are Democrat creations.  Dims like you are always boasting about them.  Spending is what "runs up the credit card."  No spending, no debt.  It's as simple as that.

The RINOs are the dumbass traitor Republicans.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *OF COURSE I DO.*
> 
> 
> *FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.*
> 
> 
> *Next question, please.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
> 
> We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *MR FUCKTARD*
> 
> *YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.*
> 
> 
> *NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the  nation without a federal reserve? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE didn't have one until 1914.
> 
> The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have _penicillin until 1928_
Click to expand...


What's your point?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
Click to expand...


They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
> 
> You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
> 
> Your fantasy worlds is BS
> 
> Dems stopped Dubya? lol
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> 2004 Republican Convention:
> 
> Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
> ...
> 
> Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
> 
> What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
> 
> Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
> 
> In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
> 
> 
> Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> *Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> *Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
> *Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
> 
> 
> *But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!
> 
> Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?
> 
> A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)
> 
> Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006
> 
> https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?
> 
> A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis*
> 
> 
> 
> *Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter*
Click to expand...



Right, from the right wing infotainment groups, lol

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*

(NOW, NAME THE LAW REQUIRING IT????, LOL)


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

*A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis*

* The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation’s financial institutions*



...*The conservative campaign to repeat lies about the financial crisis over and over again does nothing to make their argument any truer *(although it does allow those within the right-wing echo chamber to justify their extreme positions on the federal government’s role in our financial and housing markets).


No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

*Fannie and Freddie Didn't Do It!*


As if further confirmation was needed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not even a minor cause of the housing bubble and consequent bust, *the latest judgement against Nomura Securities for selling fraudulent mortgages to Fannie and Freddie should be icing on the cake; settlements that now total more than $14 billion in fines for almost all the major banks and lending institutions.*

*Fannie and Freddie Didn t Do It Harlan Green
*

*Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smart R's did, along with the Democrats.  The ones' you call RINOs.
> 
> The Dumb R's, the one's we call neo cons, supported the war against Saddam and today support a war against Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost all those spending programs are Democrat creations.  Dims like you are always boasting about them.  Spending is what "runs up the credit card."  No spending, no debt.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> The RINOs are the dumbass traitor Republicans.
Click to expand...


lol, Throw out BS and act as if it's true? The usual right wing BS


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.
Click to expand...


NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.
Click to expand...


That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!
Click to expand...


We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics.  Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
Click to expand...


My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
Click to expand...


By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.
Click to expand...


Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first the IRS accepts donations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.
Click to expand...


I said liberals use that definition.  I wasn't speaking for anyone on welfare. The liberal uses the term "greed" to refer to anyone who's doing better in life than they are.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics.  Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I forgot, I've provided credible links to EVERYTHING I post on this forum, whereas you rely on BS and right wing spin. Sorry


The richest 0.1 percent of the American population has rebuilt its share of wealth back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties. And the richest 0.01 percent’s share has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since the eve of the Reagan Revolution.







Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches - Businessweek

The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes





Beyond the 1 percent


*Forget the top 1% — Look at the top 0.1%*

Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
Click to expand...


Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.


----------



## eagle1462010

The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification.  The Flat Tax achieves this.  The left complains about too many loop holes.  The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.  

THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby.  It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.

Our debt needs to be addressed.  Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem.  Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

eagle1462010 said:


> The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification.  The Flat Tax achieves this.  The left complains about too many loop holes.  The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.
> 
> THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby.  It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.
> 
> Our debt needs to be addressed.  Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem.  Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.



I agree with most of your post, I disagree completely that a flat tax is the solution, and the call to address our debt is a canard, used to attack SS, Medicare and Medicaid, CHIPS and other government benefits.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a "purse leech?"  Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A purse leech is someone who is excessively greedy for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the way Democrats describe anyone who doesn't suck off the welfare tit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, between your ears that's probably true, welfare recipients all want to take the food off the plates of Mitt Romney's family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said liberals use that definition.  I wasn't speaking for anyone on welfare. The liberal uses the term "greed" to refer to anyone who's doing better in life than they are.
Click to expand...




*DEFINITION of 'Regressive Tax'*

A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

*INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS'Regressive Tax'*


Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.




Regressive Tax Definition Investopedia


----------



## eagle1462010

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
Click to expand...

We already do Mr. Bonehead......................they buy and sell politicians already to get whatever they want already.  BOTH PARTIES.................They then get things passed like the stimulus passed to pay 65 BILLION for a high speed rail that should have cost 15 Billion and stuff their danged pockets..............

They then get favored treatment to Gov't contracts instead of a bid process giving the tax payers the best bang for the buck on Gov't contracts..............and even when they bid lower............they just factor in cost overruns to up the ante for their own pocket books.

If I need a bridge repaired or built............I want a HARD DOLLAR CONTRACT and that's it.  Set rate for the project and that's it.  What we have now is a hard contract, and when it goes over budget it goes TIME AND MATERIAL so they rape the taxpayers to line their pockets.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification.  The Flat Tax achieves this.  The left complains about too many loop holes.  The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.
> 
> THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby.  It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.
> 
> Our debt needs to be addressed.  Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem.  Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.



Weird, Clinton got US back to 20% of GDP in revenues (near where Carter had US) and then Dubya took US to less than 15% (Korean war levels), but it's "MORE MORE MORE." that's the problem? Shrug


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
Click to expand...


By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?  

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do Mr. Bonehead......................they buy and sell politicians already to get whatever they want already.  BOTH PARTIES.................They then get things passed like the stimulus passed to pay 65 BILLION for a high speed rail that should have cost 15 Billion and stuff their danged pockets..............
> 
> They then get favored treatment to Gov't contracts instead of a bid process giving the tax payers the best bang for the buck on Gov't contracts..............and even when they bid lower............they just factor in cost overruns to up the ante for their own pocket books.
> 
> If I need a bridge repaired or built............I want a HARD DOLLAR CONTRACT and that's it.  Set rate for the project and that's it.  What we have now is a hard contract, and when it goes over budget it goes TIME AND MATERIAL so they rape the taxpayers to line their pockets.
Click to expand...


Just like they used to do right? Oh wait, no they didn't, without fallacies, what would you Klowns have?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
Click to expand...



*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*

...Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



*Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes*


Tax Policy Center data show that only about _17 percent_ of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5]   In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent.  This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.


Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers.  (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)



Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes.


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## The sheeple sea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps. 

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich


----------



## eagle1462010

Wry Catcher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal Brigade has invaded this thread.............Wanting MORE MORE MORE...........our tax system is too complex and needs simplification.  The Flat Tax achieves this.  The left complains about too many loop holes.  The Flat Tax and simplification of tax codes achieves this.
> 
> THe 70k pages of tax code and law are ridiculous and the product of decades of IDIOTS changing the codes to benefit their buddies in the lobby.  It needs to go and be replaced with a SIMPLE SYSTEM that would end the nonsense and loop holes.
> 
> Our debt needs to be addressed.  Simplifying the tax system would be part of dealing with that problem.  Lower rated tax rates that would equal out what we are getting in revenue now without all the BS to go with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of your post, I disagree completely that a flat tax is the solution, and the call to address our debt is a canard, used to attack SS, Medicare and Medicaid, CHIPS and other government benefits.
Click to expand...

The flat tax is a way to fix one portion of the system.  Simplification of the system is just part of the process.

Debt is a canard.....................I didn't say ditch SS, and medicare now did I.  There are many ways to cut spending without taking that out of the equation.  But we need people out of poverty, working, and not living off the dole.....................You do that by creating jobs not sending them away.  Regressive tax policies do this as do regulations that make business leave places like California in droves...........seeking better pastures in lower tax and regulation states............AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY..................for NO REGULATIONS, FREE TRADE, and low taxes..................In these countries much of the time they don't pay for health care either..............

The Free Trade BS has outsourced our jobs for decades and has helped kill the manufacturing base.
You don't encourage growth by taxing the shit out of business as well..............aka California........
To top it off, you can't have a Social Safety net in a country and then OPEN THE FLOOD GATES TO ILLEGALS.................which now stands at somewhere between 11 Million to 45 Million depending on the article you read.  They get on the dole and cost us BUTT LOADS OF MONEY.............and that needs to end.

All are part of the problems we face..........including the waste and abuse under the current gov't.  And to include the Earmarks which are nothing more than BRIBES FOR A VOTE................

All of this needs to change or we GREECE OURSELFS...............the sooner we deal with it the better...........unless you want the economic destruction of our country.


----------



## Wry Catcher

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.


----------



## The sheeple sea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
Click to expand...


Well, they control 90% of the wealth, so yeah, 90% of the taxes seems fair


----------



## eagle1462010

The sheeple sea said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
Click to expand...

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.


----------



## David_42

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
Click to expand...



EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”  Ronnie Reagan


Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**


The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz


----------



## eagle1462010

Wry Catcher said:


> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.


Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.

I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................

To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
> 
> For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none?  Or maybe you are an entertainment nut.  You have four televisions in your home.  Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none?  How many cars do you own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?  Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country.  It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money.  Why is that?
> 
> How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law.  It's really none of governments business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
Click to expand...



Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be 

Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
insure domestic Tranquility, and
Promote the general Welfare


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody?  After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.
> 
> Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.
> 
> Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.
Click to expand...



the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires.  It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give.  Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.


Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking  sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?  

Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....


----------



## eagle1462010

David_42 said:


> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.


I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”  Ronnie Reagan
> 
> 
> Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**
> 
> 
> The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz
Click to expand...

And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................

When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............

Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.

0% isn't enough for you...............

And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.


----------



## David_42

eagle1462010 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
Click to expand...

Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 95%+ of economists say a flat tax is regressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
Click to expand...



You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....

 Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....

Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....


You left wingers are liars and vile people.....


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed.  It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
> 
> and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
> 
> I don't think that's so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.
> 
> Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.
> 
> Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires.  It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give.  Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.
> 
> 
> Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking  sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?
> 
> Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....
Click to expand...


Rich people give the politicians money to buy tax breaks with.


----------



## eagle1462010

David_42 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
Click to expand...

Are you agreeing with the Flat tax then..................

Because it gets rid of most of the ridiculous code and ends the loop holes...............
And I've stated that it would have to be progressive or it would never pass anyway...........
Either way........I'd like to use a post card to pay my taxes...........

Like another poster early in the thread said.................Tell me what I owe and be done with it.


----------



## 2aguy

David_42 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
Click to expand...



No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.


----------



## David_42

2aguy said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
Click to expand...

Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.


----------



## NYcarbineer

GW Bush and the Republicans let PAYGO expire in 2001 so they could bust the budget with borrow and spend and 'free' wars.

And then they proceeded to do so.


----------



## David_42

eagle1462010 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you agreeing with the Flat tax then..................
> 
> Because it gets rid of most of the ridiculous code and ends the loop holes...............
> And I've stated that it would have to be progressive or it would never pass anyway...........
> Either way........I'd like to use a post card to pay my taxes...........
> 
> Like another poster early in the thread said.................Tell me what I owe and be done with it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a flat tax if it's progressive.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone.  Everyone pays the same rate.  And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.
> 
> Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.
> 
> Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires.  It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give.  Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.
> 
> 
> Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking  sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?
> 
> Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich people give the politicians money to buy tax breaks with.
Click to expand...



yeah....so if you give those politicians more money how does that stop it........it doesn't........since. The politician can only give money to rich people by first taking it from us....right?  Twit.   so if they don't have our money, they can't give it away, can they?     and letting someone keep the money they earn is not a tax break....it is not stealing their money......


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
Click to expand...


lol, so under your scheme every household with less than the average income, which happens to be around 50,000,

would pay NO income tax? 

Wasn't that what you 'nuts were just bitching about?  The people who pay no tax?


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
Click to expand...


......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit. 

Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.


----------



## eagle1462010

David_42 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
Click to expand...

BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.


----------



## Wry Catcher

eagle1462010 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
Click to expand...


Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail? 

A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.

Learn to think panoptically


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fairness is more than a math measurement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.
> 
> Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.
> 
> Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires.  It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give.  Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.
> 
> 
> Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking  sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?
> 
> Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich people give the politicians money to buy tax breaks with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah....so if you give those politicians more money how does that stop it........it doesn't........since. The politician can only give money to rich people by first taking it from us....right?  Twit.   so if they don't have our money, they can't give it away, can they?     and letting someone keep the money they earn is not a tax break....it is not stealing their money......
Click to expand...


The politicians also pass the spending bills.


----------



## David_42

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
Click to expand...

Reagan tripled the debt.


----------



## 2aguy

eagle1462010 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you agreeing with the Flat tax then..................
> 
> Because it gets rid of most of the ridiculous code and ends the loop holes...............
> And I've stated that it would have to be progressive or it would never pass anyway...........
> Either way........I'd like to use a post card to pay my taxes...........
> 
> Like another poster early in the thread said.................Tell me what I owe and be done with it.
Click to expand...



a flat tax is progressive...10% of 100,000 is less than 10% of 1 million.

you get your tax post card, deduct  up to 50,000 dollars, take 10% of the rest and send it in. done in 3 minutes, no reason to cheat, no loopholes.


----------



## 2aguy

David_42 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
Click to expand...



No, the democrats broke their deal and spent every penny of the increased revenue from his tax cuts.


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, so under your scheme every household with less than the average income, which happens to be around 50,000,
> 
> would pay NO income tax?
> 
> Wasn't that what you 'nuts were just bitching about?  The people who pay no tax?
Click to expand...

It would save this country 200 Billion plus a year as I have stated many times................

The cut in rate of taxation can be negotiated in the final form.   

We need to simplify the code in any case...........whether it be a new system or an overhaul of the old.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a Society of 320 million people fairness is a flat tax rate or a sales tax.  Not taking from some because they work harder, longer or smarter than others......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think (I know, that's silly of me to ask* you* to think) of the consequences of what you've advocated.   Really try to think. Use paper, pencil, a calculator and do the math.
> 
> Take the income of the highest paid ball player and your salary/wages and take 10% for taxes away and see how much you will each net in 10 years.
> 
> Then consider your investment income, and the investment income of an insider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the government doesn't deserve more than 10-15% of anyone's income even if they are billionaires.  It doesn't matter how much we fucking net....he paid 10-15% and that is all anyone should be asked to give.  Hating the ball player because his talent allows him to have a lot of money after he pays 10-15% is your fucking mental psychosis....envy, jealousy on your part doesn't mean we need to give even greedier, even more corrupt people more of our money.
> 
> 
> Please, none of you twits has explained how it makes any freaking  sense to give politicians even more money when right now you bitch and moan about them giving tax breaks to the rich........do you think these same politicians, these politicians will behave the way you want them too if you give them more of our money?
> 
> Please, answer that question...you guys never do...showing you are twits and morons....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich people give the politicians money to buy tax breaks with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah....so if you give those politicians more money how does that stop it........it doesn't........since. The politician can only give money to rich people by first taking it from us....right?  Twit.   so if they don't have our money, they can't give it away, can they?     and letting someone keep the money they earn is not a tax break....it is not stealing their money......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicians also pass the spending bills.
Click to expand...



Yes they do.....and the more money you send them the more they spend.  and they can reward their friends and push their enemies with the budget...so why would you give your hard earned money to them....beyond 10%-15%....... When you know, and bitch already about how they spend the money you give them now.....?


----------



## eagle1462010

David_42 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you agreeing with the Flat tax then..................
> 
> Because it gets rid of most of the ridiculous code and ends the loop holes...............
> And I've stated that it would have to be progressive or it would never pass anyway...........
> Either way........I'd like to use a post card to pay my taxes...........
> 
> Like another poster early in the thread said.................Tell me what I owe and be done with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't sound like a flat tax if it's progressive.
Click to expand...

A Flat tax can be progressive and or a flat set rate to all...............

A flat set rate to all would be fair but would never pass...............

My main goal is the simplification of the BS code we have now.  The large code with the IRS we have now is for one purpose................to create loop holes to avoid paying.   That is why it is so large..................

That needs to end, and simplify the system.  So it is fair to all involved.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
> 
> 
> Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
> Ronnie 17%
> Clinton 20%
> Dubya 15%
> Obama17%
> 
> HMM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah link that moron.  And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
> 
> You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
> 
> Your fantasy worlds is BS
> 
> Dems stopped Dubya? lol
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> 2004 Republican Convention:
> 
> Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
> ...
> 
> Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
> 
> (APPLAUSE)
> 
> Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
> 
> What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
> 
> Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
> 
> In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
> 
> 
> Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
> 
> Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> *Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> *Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
> *Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
> 
> 
> *But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!
> 
> Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?
> 
> A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)
> 
> Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006
> 
> https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?
> 
> A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis*
> 
> 
> 
> *Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter*
Click to expand...



thanks.....dealing with lying libs who want to give even more of their money.....and more importantly....our money, to these corrupt asshole politicians as if they use it wisely and efficiently is frustrating.


----------



## eagle1462010

Wry Catcher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
Click to expand...

The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............

And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.

My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”  Ronnie Reagan
> 
> 
> Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**
> 
> 
> The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................
> 
> When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............
> 
> Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.
> 
> 0% isn't enough for you...............
> 
> And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.
Click to expand...



* The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.*

$520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of  these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.

Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich



*The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy *


*



*

*The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute*


----------



## 2aguy

eagle1462010 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............
> 
> And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.
> 
> My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........
Click to expand...



yes, the military is vital but it too is filed with theft, greed, waste and fraud........the left always thinks we want all those things in the military just showing how stupid they are...again.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”  Ronnie Reagan
> 
> 
> Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**
> 
> 
> The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................
> 
> When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............
> 
> Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.
> 
> 0% isn't enough for you...............
> 
> And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.*
> 
> $520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
> The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
> The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of  these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
> 
> Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich
> 
> 
> *The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute*
Click to expand...



Yeah twit and the rich still paid more money in taxes....what is it with you as holes and how much people have left....it doesn't fucking belong to you or the greedy politicians you want to give it to...


You didn't answer my question you twit.


----------



## 2aguy

here is a direct example.....

Romney paid 14 effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21 2012

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.

Okay...Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes.....and you guys still bitch that he didn't pay enough...he paid more in one year,  than some pay their entire tax lives and it isn't enough for you......and you want to give it to politicians who will use it to make themselves and their friends rich and powerful....how does that make any freaking sense...he earned it and you want to take it...you are the greedy fucks, not him

And if I remember correctly, he also gave 3-7 million to charity on top of those tax dollars....again...you lefties,are the greedy assholes, not him.


----------



## eagle1462010

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”  Ronnie Reagan
> 
> 
> Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**
> 
> 
> The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................
> 
> When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............
> 
> Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.
> 
> 0% isn't enough for you...............
> 
> And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.*
> 
> $520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
> The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
> The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of  these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
> 
> Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich
> 
> *The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah twit and the rich still paid more money in taxes....what is it with you as holes and how much people have left....it doesn't fucking belong to you or the greedy politicians you want to give it to...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question you twit.
Click to expand...

He never will either..............they love showing the pictures of how the percentages are the same but not the ones where the volume of money flowing in from the higher brackets dwarf the percentage of the lower tiers............................Which is why most of the income in tax revenues comes from the upper ranges..........

The Bush tax cuts targeted all groups................which is against the leftist mindset.....................

Simplification of the code is the way to make the system fair for all...............but they don't want that.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....
> 
> Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....
> 
> Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....
> 
> 
> You left wingers are liars and vile people.....
Click to expand...



Another right winger projecting. Sad

THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD

*Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”*

*Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters*

*Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”*

*Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters*

*NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD  (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO*

*Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com

*

*Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast


GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’

GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress


Myth of Voter Fraud
Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice



New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed

A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
*
New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations


----------



## Dad2three

David_42 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
Click to expand...


"Except anyone who understands basic math"

There goes the GOP base...


----------



## Dad2three

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, so under your scheme every household with less than the average income, which happens to be around 50,000,
> 
> would pay NO income tax?
> 
> Wasn't that what you 'nuts were just bitching about?  The people who pay no tax?
Click to expand...


As their plan can't add up mathematically, they'll use MORE voodoo economics on US!


----------



## NYcarbineer

With a flat tax, lower income people would have to pay more to make up for the less the rich would pay.

In addition, you lose, for example, your mortgage interest deduction, your IRA's, your college savings deductions, your child tax credits, and on and on and on.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
Click to expand...



You do understand the debt ceiling is for laws already passed right? You know PAST spending under law? And no, it was GOPers who said "deficits don't matter Reagan proved it" AS the Liberals/Dems asked to get US back to where Clinton had US with his 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!!!!)

Conservatives, for nearly 40 years, goal has been to destroy EFFECTIVE Gov't., And when they are in charge, did a pretty good job of it too!


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....
> 
> Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....
> 
> Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....
> 
> 
> You left wingers are liars and vile people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another right winger projecting. Sad
> 
> THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD
> 
> *Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”*
> 
> *Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters*
> 
> *Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”*
> 
> *Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters*
> 
> *NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD  (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO*
> 
> *Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com
> 
> *
> 
> *Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
> 
> Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> Myth of Voter Fraud
> Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
> 
> A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
> *
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
Click to expand...



Yes, expecting people to prove who they are with the same I'd they drive with is not preventing people from voting.....and if they have no idea, giving them a free state I'd, and having a state worker come to their home to make sure they can get one is not preventing people from voting....

Democrats cheat...all the time...and using I'd like the rest of the world does when they vote just makes sense...you twit.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
Click to expand...



IF you are going to lie, be original. THERE IS NOT YET A HIGH SPIED TRAIN IN TEXAS, FUNDING HASN'T EVEN BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE STUDIES, LOL


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition a flat tax is not regressive.  It's flat.  that's what "flat" means.  Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.
> 
> Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....
> 
> Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....
> 
> Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....
> 
> 
> You left wingers are liars and vile people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another right winger projecting. Sad
> 
> THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD
> 
> *Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”*
> 
> *Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters*
> 
> *Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”*
> 
> *Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters*
> 
> *NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD  (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO*
> 
> *Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com
> 
> *
> 
> *Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
> 
> Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> Myth of Voter Fraud
> Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
> 
> A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
> *
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
Click to expand...



Yes...tell your lies to Nelson Mandela...he looks great in his "Get an ID to vote shirt"

Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN

Remember when One Wisconsin Now embarrassingly tried to use Mandela's death to slam Governor Walker over Voter ID laws? Yeah, about that....

_Think Progress_, a liberal media outlet, praised the South African constitution while it eulogized Mandela, writing, “The truth, however, is that the United States could learn a great deal from South Africa’s constitution.”

That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed in Wisconsin.

An October story from a South African news outlet explains in advance of the nation’s 2014 elections, “aspirant voters must produce a valid South African identity document when registering to vote and when voting.” That means procuring one of “three forms of official identification.”

*MediaTrackers.org* also brilliantly dug up this *Yahoo! News picture* of Nelson Mandela wearing a pro-Voter ID shirt:






Oh liberals, you just can't win for trying, can you?




Read more: Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the democrats broke their deal and spent every penny of the increased revenue from his tax cuts.
Click to expand...


FUKKIN LIAR


*The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts*


on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts.* In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the (REAGAN)  administration did. *

* If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.*

*The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post*


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the democrats broke their deal and spent every penny of the increased revenue from his tax cuts.
Click to expand...


lol.  The myths abound.


----------



## NYcarbineer

*From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes

Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.

*Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

*So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
Click to expand...

I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.

It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............

It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.

But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
Click to expand...

I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.

It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............

It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.

But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............
> 
> And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.
> 
> My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........
Click to expand...



J*uly 23, 2015*

*A revolutionary project to connect Dallas and Houston by bullet train just took a major leap forward.

Texas Central Partners, which aims to build the nation's first bullet train between Texas' two biggest cities, announced Wednesday they'd raked in $75 million in private investments in the company's first round of fundraising. That money will allow the ambitious $10 billion project to move forward from feasibility studies to development planning.

Texas high speed rail passes major milestone with first fundraising announcement - Houston Chronicle
*


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> here is a direct example.....
> 
> Romney paid 14 effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21 2012
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
> 
> Okay...Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes.....and you guys still bitch that he didn't pay enough...he paid more in one year,  than some pay their entire tax lives and it isn't enough for you......and you want to give it to politicians who will use it to make themselves and their friends rich and powerful....how does that make any freaking sense...he earned it and you want to take it...you are the greedy fucks, not him
> 
> And if I remember correctly, he also gave 3-7 million to charity on top of those tax dollars....again...you lefties,are the greedy assholes, not him.



So you are  another right wing wack job that doesn't understand basic math and hoe Gov't runs and it's needs? Shocking.


Talk about greed, it's NOT the guy making his fortune being a vulture capitalist, but the society he preyed on? lol


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....
> 
> Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....
> 
> Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....
> 
> 
> You left wingers are liars and vile people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another right winger projecting. Sad
> 
> THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD
> 
> *Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”*
> 
> *Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters*
> 
> *Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”*
> 
> *Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters*
> 
> *NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD  (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO*
> 
> *Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com
> 
> *
> 
> *Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
> 
> Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> Myth of Voter Fraud
> Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
> 
> A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
> *
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, expecting people to prove who they are with the same I'd they drive with is not preventing people from voting.....and if they have no idea, giving them a free state I'd, and having a state worker come to their home to make sure they can get one is not preventing people from voting....
> 
> Democrats cheat...all the time...and using I'd like the rest of the world does when they vote just makes sense...you twit.
Click to expand...


ANOTHER typical con, ignore the evidence, don't try to refute ANY of it, just stand by the MYTH that people are voting illegally (a FELONY) because they want to? 

WHY WOULD THEY RISK THE FELONY AGAIN?

You NOW want to do things like "rest of the world"? How about taxing the "job creators" like them? Social safety nets like them? Gun laws like them? Oh right, better just stick to the FALLACY that their is an epidermic of fraud happening in the voting booth, lol

Cons ALWAYS for a bigger Gov't WHEN it's not needed


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences of tax policy matter.  Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit?  Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and for the people?  You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?
> 
> I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
> Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
> Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
> The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor
> Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many.  Which do you think will be
> 
> Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
> insure domestic Tranquility, and
> Promote the general Welfare
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true.   trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....
> 
> Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....
> 
> Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....
> 
> 
> You left wingers are liars and vile people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another right winger projecting. Sad
> 
> THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD
> 
> *Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”*
> 
> *Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters*
> 
> *Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”*
> 
> *Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters*
> 
> *NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD  (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO*
> 
> *Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com
> 
> *
> 
> *Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters
> 
> Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’
> 
> GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> Myth of Voter Fraud
> Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice
> 
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed
> 
> A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
> *
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...tell your lies to Nelson Mandela...he looks great in his "Get an ID to vote shirt"
> 
> Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN
> 
> Remember when One Wisconsin Now embarrassingly tried to use Mandela's death to slam Governor Walker over Voter ID laws? Yeah, about that....
> 
> _Think Progress_, a liberal media outlet, praised the South African constitution while it eulogized Mandela, writing, “The truth, however, is that the United States could learn a great deal from South Africa’s constitution.”
> 
> That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed in Wisconsin.
> 
> An October story from a South African news outlet explains in advance of the nation’s 2014 elections, “aspirant voters must produce a valid South African identity document when registering to vote and when voting.” That means procuring one of “three forms of official identification.”
> 
> *MediaTrackers.org* also brilliantly dug up this *Yahoo! News picture* of Nelson Mandela wearing a pro-Voter ID shirt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh liberals, you just can't win for trying, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN
Click to expand...




S Africa? THEY have a history of voter fraud Bubba?

*Myth of Voter Fraud*

It is important to protect the integrity of our elections. But we must be careful not to undermine free and fair access to the ballot in the name of preventing voter fraud. 

The Brennan Center’s ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators. Our report "The Truth About Voter Fraud" reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless — and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.

Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice



*New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed*


*In-person voter-impersonation fraud is rare*. The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation. “The fraud that matters is the fraud that is organized. That's why voter impersonation is practically non-existent because it is difficult to do and it is difficult to pull people into conspiracies to do it,” said Lorraine Minnite, professor of public policy and administration at Rutgers University.


There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. *A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases.*
New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

STICK WITH YOUR "FEELINGS" AND GUT BUBBA, I'LL STICK TO FACTS!!!


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............
> 
> And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.
> 
> My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> J*uly 23, 2015*
> 
> *A revolutionary project to connect Dallas and Houston by bullet train just took a major leap forward.
> 
> Texas Central Partners, which aims to build the nation's first bullet train between Texas' two biggest cities, announced Wednesday they'd raked in $75 million in private investments in the company's first round of fundraising. That money will allow the ambitious $10 billion project to move forward from feasibility studies to development planning.
> 
> Texas high speed rail passes major milestone with first fundraising announcement - Houston Chronicle*
Click to expand...

You got me on that one.................as another article a while back said it was done.  So sue me...............

Now that it isn't built yet...................what is the projected cost of the project..............versus California.............

and finally.......which is more important............a high speed rail or water............................and it is a Private enterprise project in Texas.................Federally funded in California..............


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
Click to expand...


Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!

TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*




Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............
> 
> And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.
> 
> My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> J*uly 23, 2015*
> 
> *A revolutionary project to connect Dallas and Houston by bullet train just took a major leap forward.
> 
> Texas Central Partners, which aims to build the nation's first bullet train between Texas' two biggest cities, announced Wednesday they'd raked in $75 million in private investments in the company's first round of fundraising. That money will allow the ambitious $10 billion project to move forward from feasibility studies to development planning.
> 
> Texas high speed rail passes major milestone with first fundraising announcement - Houston Chronicle*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got me on that one.................as another article a while back said it was done.  So sue me...............
> 
> Now that it isn't built yet...................what is the projected cost of the project..............versus California.............
> 
> and finally.......which is more important............a high speed rail or water............................and it is a Private enterprise project in Texas.................Federally funded in California..............
Click to expand...


Conservatives fav thing to do, comparing apples to oranges then trying to make US believe it's better with grapes!


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
Click to expand...



Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
Click to expand...



Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done








80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?


----------



## LeftofLeft

David_42 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
Click to expand...


Did he raise the debt ceiling and call for more taxes on the high income earners and Middle Class??


----------



## 2aguy

here is a direct example.....

Romney paid 14 effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21 2012

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
Okay...Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes.....and you guys still bitch that he didn't pay enough...he paid more in one year, than some pay their entire tax lives and it isn't enough for you......and you want to give it to politicians who will use it to make themselves and their friends rich and powerful....how does that make any freaking sense...he earned it and you want to take it...you are the greedy fucks, not him


so tell me how Romney didn't pay his fair share giving the government 1.94 million dollars in taxes......more than most of the country pays in taxes for their entire lives....


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
Click to expand...



Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol

I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
Click to expand...



the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?


you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
Click to expand...


Lying asshole......


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he raise the debt ceiling and call for more taxes on the high income earners and Middle Class??
Click to expand...


Nope, he gutted not only the top rate from 70% to 28% he increased the debt ceiling 18 times!


Of course his tax increases that mainly hit the working classes (SS taxes increased by 60%), helped stop the debt increase at only tripling the debt!


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand the debt ceiling is for laws already passed right? You know PAST spending under law? And no, it was GOPers who said "deficits don't matter Reagan proved it" AS the Liberals/Dems asked to get US back to where Clinton had US with his 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!!!!)
> 
> Conservatives, for nearly 40 years, goal has been to destroy EFFECTIVE Gov't., And when they are in charge, did a pretty good job of it too!
Click to expand...


So, just because debt ceiling is for laws already passed, the ceiling should be raised? Again, your logic can be applied to irresponsible credit card spending. "Yes, but I am only asking for more debt on established spending". It's on the books. Milk it!!! Right?


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> 
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
Click to expand...


LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
Click to expand...


DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand the debt ceiling is for laws already passed right? You know PAST spending under law? And no, it was GOPers who said "deficits don't matter Reagan proved it" AS the Liberals/Dems asked to get US back to where Clinton had US with his 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!!!!)
> 
> Conservatives, for nearly 40 years, goal has been to destroy EFFECTIVE Gov't., And when they are in charge, did a pretty good job of it too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, just because debt ceiling is for laws already passed, the ceiling should be raised? Again, your logic can be applied to irresponsible credit card spending. "Yes, but I am only asking for more debt on established spending". It's on the books. Milk it!!! Right?
Click to expand...



Weird how SOOO low informed and how the ability to not use critical thinking  the right wing has today?


Yes, lets treat Gov't like a household budget *shaking head*, Perhaps stop getting your info (probably) from the three stooges on the right, Rush, Hannity and Beck, none of who got past high skrool?

Lets just stop Gov't spending mid stream, THAT wouldn't hurt the economy right? lol


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
Click to expand...



Lying asshole.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
Click to expand...



What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???
Click to expand...


Lets see what YOU can come up with Bubba, I've done a pretty good job linking why I think the way I do, with REASONED, well thought out positions, you as typical of the rightie (see 2aguy above) just can't do more than "feelings"...


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying asshole.
Click to expand...


Oh sorry, Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenues than otherwise the treasury would've received right? Lets try that for you, take a 20% reduction and see if you work more next year to make up for it? lol


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see what YOU can come up with Bubba, I've done a pretty good job linking why I think the way I do, with REASONED, well thought out positions, you as typical of the rightie (see 2aguy above) just can't do more than "feelings"...
Click to expand...


You link a lot and call other people out on what is credible.... Yet, according to what standards other than what lies between your ears.


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
Click to expand...



You are a moron.


----------



## SAYIT

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?

Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 
You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
Quit your whining and start earning.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics.  Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot, I've provided credible links to EVERYTHING I post on this forum, whereas you rely on BS and right wing spin. Sorry
> 
> 
> The richest 0.1 percent of the American population has rebuilt its share of wealth back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties. And the richest 0.01 percent’s share has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since the eve of the Reagan Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches - Businessweek
> 
> The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond the 1 percent
> 
> 
> *Forget the top 1% — Look at the top 0.1%*
> 
> Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
> Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
> Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
> Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)
Click to expand...


What is the source of the data for your graph on the effective tax rates people were paying in 1960?  Don't tell us it's the New York Times.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Since they use more resources like infrastructure, police and economic policies favor them..Well, I'd say fuck yes.


----------



## bripat9643

eagle1462010 said:


> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
Click to expand...


The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Mike473

Being self employed, I just wish taxes were a little more reasonable. The self employment tax plus regular income tax is a killer. As more venture out to self employment, I am hoping this gets the more attention.


----------



## bripat9643

Matthew said:


> Since they use more resources like infrastructure, police and economic policies favor them..Well, I'd say fuck yes.


They use less police since they generally provide their own security.  They pay for roads with gas taxes and ton/mile taxes exactly in proportion to how much of them they use.  The same goes for any other "infrastructure" they use.  So where's the excuse for charging them a higher rate on their income taxes?


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
Click to expand...


We already have progressive taxation.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
Click to expand...


Good.


----------



## bripat9643

2aguy said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
> Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.
> 
> The simplified code ends the BS under the current system.  It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already.  The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............
> 
> Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
Click to expand...


The FAIR tax is the only method that will get rid of the IRS.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.
> 
> Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and  allow the other party to buy the elections.  Even a bonehead understands that.
> 
> Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.
> 
> You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.
> 
> Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you back.  You happy now.............
> Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.
> 
> I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................
> 
> To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?
> 
> A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento.  The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.
> 
> Learn to think panoptically
Click to expand...


Don't tell me:  you actually believe this tripe!

And how much is this boondoggle going to cost?  I've already seen estimates in excess of $25 billion.  You could build 2 dozen "transit villages" for that much money.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand  dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue.  anything else is based in hate and greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
Click to expand...

Under my example it was 15% across the board not at 50k  and I did it on the irs tax forms and individual filers which is not the whole dang tax system.  

I only surveyed the income filed equation and not the business side Mr. Dumb Ass.

The Corp and business side of the equation wasn't in the bitch.

You don't want a simplified system.  Which is what the hell I'm talking about.  

Now give me a couple of cheers of TAX THE RICH TAX THE RICH..................break out your danged pom poms


----------



## eagle1462010

bripat9643 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Some of the proposals have done just that..................and it has a snow balls chance in hell to get passed unless it isn't that way.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see what YOU can come up with Bubba, I've done a pretty good job linking why I think the way I do, with REASONED, well thought out positions, you as typical of the rightie (see 2aguy above) just can't do more than "feelings"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You link a lot and call other people out on what is credible.... Yet, according to what standards other than what lies between your ears.
Click to expand...





So NO, you have NOTHING but opinions based on right wing BS, not even able to back that up. Thanks


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
Click to expand...



MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make


*Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*







Historical Amount of Revenue by Source










I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy.  Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They must not be paying them enough because the wealthy still support this country with their taxation.  They are still paying the lions share for the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE, they USED to pay MUCH more on MUCH less incomes however!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence that your graph is based on actual credible statistics.  Until you can demonstrate such, it's just so much horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot, I've provided credible links to EVERYTHING I post on this forum, whereas you rely on BS and right wing spin. Sorry
> 
> 
> The richest 0.1 percent of the American population has rebuilt its share of wealth back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties. And the richest 0.01 percent’s share has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since the eve of the Reagan Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches - Businessweek
> 
> The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond the 1 percent
> 
> 
> *Forget the top 1% — Look at the top 0.1%*
> 
> Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
> Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
> Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
> Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the source of the data for your graph on the effective tax rates people were paying in 1960?  Don't tell us it's the New York Times.
Click to expand...



Got it, you can't back up your BS so you TRY to attack mine. Got it! 

Saez and  CBO Bubba


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying asshole......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see what YOU can come up with Bubba, I've done a pretty good job linking why I think the way I do, with REASONED, well thought out positions, you as typical of the rightie (see 2aguy above) just can't do more than "feelings"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You link a lot and call other people out on what is credible.... Yet, according to what standards other than what lies between your ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you have NOTHING but opinions based on right wing BS, not even able to back that up. Thanks
Click to expand...


Again, you tout your own links as gold, but they lack validation other than what lies between your ears.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> He? Oh right NOT decades of every US admin spending and policyOR the failure of communism as a system, it was SuperRonnie *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Carter policy, until the USSR invaded Afghanistan, was to cut the military and surrender to Communist infiltration and overthrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter became President right after Vietnam ended. He had an obligation to cut the size or our wartime forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter decimated the military and handed our allies over to the communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> In fact, by the 70s and 80s our military built to Cold War doctrine was obsolete
> Investing in more Cold War equipment would have been wasted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan was elected in 1980, moron.
Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock

Our military had to be rebuilt right after Reagan left office
Lighter and faster forces


----------



## rightwinger

excalibur said:


> The "rich" already pay the vast bulk of taxes.


That is what happens when you control 
90% of the wealth
Where else should the taxes come from?


----------



## hadit

The only significant response to such an OP title is, how much?  If they won't/can't define something so simple and basic, it's not worth the argument.


----------



## hadit

There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
Click to expand...



Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
Click to expand...


Tax cuts don't cost money.  Tax cuts reduce the money coming in.  If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
Click to expand...


And that's why we got rid of them.  In fact, our top running nominees are not professional politicians at all.  

What are the constituents of your party doing to improve things?


----------



## SAYIT

bripat9643 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).


----------



## SAYIT

rightwinger said:


> excalibur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "rich" already pay the vast bulk of taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what happens when you control
> 90% of the wealth
> Where else should the taxes come from?
Click to expand...


Income taxes are not based on wealth ... we have inheritance taxes for that.
Income taxes are based upon - drum roll, please - INCOME.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

David_42 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.
> 
> Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan tripled the debt.
Click to expand...


Which is impossible since no President has our checkbook.  Congress has our checkbook. Only they can triple the debt.  If the President refuses to go along with Congress, that's what causes a government shutdown.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
Click to expand...


Your taxes would go up, unless you can convince me you're really really rich or really really poor.


----------



## SAYIT

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your taxes would go up, unless you can convince me you're really really rich or really really poor.
Click to expand...


Yanno, every year of my nearly 40 years in business I came face-2-face with the reality that I was wasting days, sometimes weeks, compiling data for accountants and tax attorneys who then bent, twisted and mutilated that info into a tax return. The time I wasted and the professional fees had a value of $10,000 - $15,000 per tax season ... nearly 10% of my annual income.
Where the hell is the productivity in that?


----------



## bripat9643

SAYIT said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
> We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).
Click to expand...


As long as we have an income tax, we will still have the IRS and all the accountants, tax attorneys and IRS bean counters will keep their jobs.  The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the income tax and switch to a consumption tax.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
> We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have an income tax, we will still have the IRS and all the accountants, tax attorneys and IRS bean counters will keep their jobs.  The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the income tax and switch to a consumption tax.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, great idea, punish the poor more then anyone else.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOVE how you refuted it with all the links to credible sources, lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider credible sources? CBS Dan Rather or NBC Brian Williams? That kind of credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see what YOU can come up with Bubba, I've done a pretty good job linking why I think the way I do, with REASONED, well thought out positions, you as typical of the rightie (see 2aguy above) just can't do more than "feelings"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You link a lot and call other people out on what is credible.... Yet, according to what standards other than what lies between your ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you have NOTHING but opinions based on right wing BS, not even able to back that up. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you tout your own links as gold, but they lack validation other than what lies between your ears.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.




Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?

Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?

BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From:  10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes
> 
> Question.* Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.
> 
> *Answer:*_ Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. _ For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
> 
> *So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts don't cost money.  Tax cuts reduce the money coming in.  If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.
Click to expand...



Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol

Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!

Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol
> 
> 
> 
> I have done so before and did an analysis for the year 2012..........and the rate was 15% that I calculated to get a return on the system at 200 billion more than under the current system of taxation.
> 
> It was based off the IRS data for that year and the wage brackets directly from the IRS..............
> 
> It fell on deaf and dumb ears...........aka YOU...............who refuse to even consider it...........because you like the current BS system which is corrupt with fraud.
> 
> But liking fraud and abuse is expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, no fukkn way you used MATH. Maybe conservative/GOP "math" but that's NOT reality!
> 
> TODAY the US gets 17%+ of GDP AND are running deficits, you saying gutting it to 15% AND giving the bottom  making $50,000 or less a zero tax works? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...cut spending.  We don't need shrimp running on treadmills or paying for stupidness to figure out why girls who are fat can't get dates...you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought the GOP had most of Congress the past 20 years? Why didn't they cut the "waste" lol
> 
> I know, lets sign an agreement  NOT to have a tax increase like 98% in Congress from GOP did right? After all, after Dubya/GOP gutted revenues to less than 15% of GDP (1950'S LEVEL) , WHILE they blew up spending with TWO UNFUNDED wars AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COST THIS DECADE, AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES THIS DECADE, WHICH IS 100% FUNDED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why we got rid of them.  In fact, our top running nominees are not professional politicians at all.
> 
> What are the constituents of your party doing to improve things?
Click to expand...


LOL, Sure Trump is going to run US like a Biz, lol


You aren't  to stupid to really believe that someone like Trump or Cruz REALLY wants effective Gov't right? 

Elect people (current GOPers going back to Reagan) who "don't believe ib" GOV'T THEN GET IN AND DESTROY IT FROM WITHIN, YOU ARE SHOCKED THEY ALLOW THE S&L CRISIS AND SUBPRIME CRISIS? Fund terrorists? Cut and run from terrorists? Use the Constitution as toilet paper as Reagan did? Then you get Dubya who goes on steroids to destroy US?


----------



## quorthon

Dad2three said:


> Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol
> 
> Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!
> 
> Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%


At least some of them understand that spending must be cut.
Florida s Jeb Bush vows to cut spending Washington lobbying - US News


----------



## Darkwind

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


Tell me, should we limit the natural rights of specific citizens based upon nothing more than some subjective notion that it won't 'hurt them very much'?

My question to you is the same one that Dr. Carson asked the President.

Does taxation exist to harm people?  If not, then why do you and the progressives want taxes that harm JUST one class of people?

Do we now allow government to provide us what rights THEY deem we should have?


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Tax cuts don't cost money.  Tax cuts reduce the money coming in.  If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.



Indeed, so why not cut the spending to $0, then you could have tax rate of 0%?


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Click to expand...

You're acting like people don't change behavior when the tax code changes.  Double the income tax on high earners and all of a sudden their regular income disappears, along with your projected revenue increase.  Have you ever wondered why Warren Buffet is out there claiming he wants a higher income tax?  It's because the bulk of his income is in capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate.  He knows very well that any income tax increase won't have much impact on him at all.  The target is not stationary, and will not stand still.


----------



## bedowin62

'the majority of them are selfish................................."

gotta love the way left-wing losers pandering and engaging in divisive demagoguery blissfully make blanket statements on groups, the very kind they love to lecture others about and accuse of doing

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Click to expand...

Typical communist scumbag............Take nearly half their earnings for justice, without doing any dang cuts whatsoever.................They, like in the past will offshore their money even more than now to avoid your dumb assed plans to rape them.

We spend too dang much in this country.  We spend more than the GDP of any other nation in the world and if you can't think of anyway to cut it other than gutting the military then you are a complete idiot.

Well................you are an idiot..............Now go ask daddy uncle sam for your Fing allowance,


----------



## Dad2three

quorthon said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol
> 
> Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!
> 
> Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of them understand that spending must be cut.
> Florida s Jeb Bush vows to cut spending Washington lobbying - US News
Click to expand...



Sure, is that before or after he cuts taxes (revenues)? I'll believe when I see a REAL  conservative (Goldwater/Ike type). He also promises peace and prosperity right?


----------



## Dad2three

Darkwind said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, should we limit the natural rights of specific citizens based upon nothing more than some subjective notion that it won't 'hurt them very much'?
> 
> My question to you is the same one that Dr. Carson asked the President.
> 
> Does taxation exist to harm people?  If not, then why do you and the progressives want taxes that harm JUST one class of people?
> 
> Do we now allow government to provide us what rights THEY deem we should have?
Click to expand...


Says the Klown who wants US to look like a monarchy, with the "job creators" as the Kings/Queens! 

Hint, since the US's founding, the US taxed the rich progressively!!!

At what time was it considered patriotic to not expect Gov't to be funded? At what point is it the greedy, wealthy bastards who ship jobs offshore to make a few more dollars, need not be expected to pay for living in the SOCIETY we created?


*The Rich Haven’t Always Hated Taxes*
Once upon a time, the wealthy elite took pride in the fact that they paid higher rates than other Americans

...In fact, when the income tax was first regularly put into place in 1913, the well-off were the only ones required to pay it.


...In 1909, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of income and inheritance taxes, as they would promote, “equality of opportunity.”  The programs required a constitutional amendment, and by 1913, 88% of states agreed that it was time to tax the income of its citizens. But not all its citizens — instead the income tax burden fell solely on couples who made over $4,000 (in today’s terms, around $88,000). If you made less, you paid nothing. And the more you made, the more you paid.

..When John D. Rockefeller Sr. died in 1937, the estate tax was nearly 70%, yet complaints from his family would not be publicly heard. *Two years earlier his son earned more than $5 million; this gave him the distinction of being the only person in America’s highest tax bracket (at a rate of 63%)*.* No editorials were written by John Jr. to suggest class warfare, or that the rich were being unfairly singled out.*

The Rich Haven t Always Hated Taxes TIME.com


----------



## Darkwind

Dad2three said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, should we limit the natural rights of specific citizens based upon nothing more than some subjective notion that it won't 'hurt them very much'?
> 
> My question to you is the same one that Dr. Carson asked the President.
> 
> Does taxation exist to harm people?  If not, then why do you and the progressives want taxes that harm JUST one class of people?
> 
> Do we now allow government to provide us what rights THEY deem we should have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who wants US to look like a monarchy, with the "job creators" as the Kings/Queens!
> 
> Hint, since the US's founding, the US taxed the rich progressively!!!
> 
> At what time was it considered patriotic to not expect Gov't to be funded? At what point is it the greedy, wealthy bastards who ship jobs offshore to make a few more dollars, need not be expected to pay for living in the SOCIETY we created?
> 
> 
> *The Rich Haven’t Always Hated Taxes*
> Once upon a time, the wealthy elite took pride in the fact that they paid higher rates than other Americans
> 
> ...In fact, when the income tax was first regularly put into place in 1913, the well-off were the only ones required to pay it.
> 
> 
> ...In 1909, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of income and inheritance taxes, as they would promote, “equality of opportunity.”  The programs required a constitutional amendment, and by 1913, 88% of states agreed that it was time to tax the income of its citizens. But not all its citizens — instead the income tax burden fell solely on couples who made over $4,000 (in today’s terms, around $88,000). If you made less, you paid nothing. And the more you made, the more you paid.
> 
> ..When John D. Rockefeller Sr. died in 1937, the estate tax was nearly 70%, yet complaints from his family would not be publicly heard. *Two years earlier his son earned more than $5 million; this gave him the distinction of being the only person in America’s highest tax bracket (at a rate of 63%)*.* No editorials were written by John Jr. to suggest class warfare, or that the rich were being unfairly singled out.*
> 
> The Rich Haven t Always Hated Taxes TIME.com
Click to expand...

You clearly are confused.  Not surprised really.  You seem to live that way.


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, should we limit the natural rights of specific citizens based upon nothing more than some subjective notion that it won't 'hurt them very much'?
> 
> My question to you is the same one that Dr. Carson asked the President.
> 
> Does taxation exist to harm people?  If not, then why do you and the progressives want taxes that harm JUST one class of people?
> 
> Do we now allow government to provide us what rights THEY deem we should have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who wants US to look like a monarchy, with the "job creators" as the Kings/Queens!
> 
> Hint, since the US's founding, the US taxed the rich progressively!!!
> 
> At what time was it considered patriotic to not expect Gov't to be funded? At what point is it the greedy, wealthy bastards who ship jobs offshore to make a few more dollars, need not be expected to pay for living in the SOCIETY we created?
> 
> 
> *The Rich Haven’t Always Hated Taxes*
> Once upon a time, the wealthy elite took pride in the fact that they paid higher rates than other Americans
> 
> ...In fact, when the income tax was first regularly put into place in 1913, the well-off were the only ones required to pay it.
> 
> 
> ...In 1909, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of income and inheritance taxes, as they would promote, “equality of opportunity.”  The programs required a constitutional amendment, and by 1913, 88% of states agreed that it was time to tax the income of its citizens. But not all its citizens — instead the income tax burden fell solely on couples who made over $4,000 (in today’s terms, around $88,000). If you made less, you paid nothing. And the more you made, the more you paid.
> 
> ..When John D. Rockefeller Sr. died in 1937, the estate tax was nearly 70%, yet complaints from his family would not be publicly heard. *Two years earlier his son earned more than $5 million; this gave him the distinction of being the only person in America’s highest tax bracket (at a rate of 63%)*.* No editorials were written by John Jr. to suggest class warfare, or that the rich were being unfairly singled out.*
> 
> The Rich Haven t Always Hated Taxes TIME.com
Click to expand...

 


YAWN

 dont you love the way the "forward" crowd constantly looks backward?

and what's up with the long-winded dissertations?

 copy and paste much?
cant think for yourself?


----------



## bedowin62

why dont you just give more of your own money to the government leftard?

what's stopping you?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're acting like people don't change behavior when the tax code changes.  Double the income tax on high earners and all of a sudden their regular income disappears, along with your projected revenue increase.  Have you ever wondered why Warren Buffet is out there claiming he wants a higher income tax?  It's because the bulk of his income is in capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate.  He knows very well that any income tax increase won't have much impact on him at all.  The target is not stationary, and will not stand still.
Click to expand...



Without false premises, distortions and LIES, what would the right wingers EVER have? 

RIGHT, Buffet called for just an increase in INCOME taxes right? Fukking liar. He said the rich, who by and large get their incomes from wealth (over 50% of capital gains and taxes in the US go to only 1/10th of 1% of US!) SHOULD BE PAYING MORE TAXES! Just like they historically did. It's called EFFECTIVE tax rates!

Let me guess, the rich will put their money in the mattresses right? lol


----------



## bedowin62

Buffet is a special kind of hypocrite for even proposing that. he's in his own bracket of rich

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> 'the majority of them are selfish................................."
> 
> gotta love the way left-wing losers pandering and engaging in divisive demagoguery blissfully make blanket statements on groups, the very kind they love to lecture others about and accuse of doing
> 
> idiots and hypocrites




Good projection there Bubs, you a Rushblo follower or Insannitty?


----------



## bedowin62

*More Warren Buffett Hypocrisy; Restructures Deal To Avoid ...*
www.zerohedge.com/.../more-*warren*-*buffett*-*hypocrisy*-restr...

Cached
Similar
Zero Hedge
Loading...
Mar 18, 2014 - Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, *Warren Buffett* ... I've pointed out “Uncle” Warren's *hypocrisy* previously on these pages,


i can copy and paste too


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'the majority of them are selfish................................."
> 
> gotta love the way left-wing losers pandering and engaging in divisive demagoguery blissfully make blanket statements on groups, the very kind they love to lecture others about and accuse of doing
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good projection there Bubs, you a Rushblo follower or Insannitty?
Click to expand...

 

YAWN

 more idiotic talkin points

try again


----------



## bedowin62

Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate

i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical communist scumbag............Take nearly half their earnings for justice, without doing any dang cuts whatsoever.................They, like in the past will offshore their money even more than now to avoid your dumb assed plans to rape them.
> 
> We spend too dang much in this country.  We spend more than the GDP of any other nation in the world and if you can't think of anyway to cut it other than gutting the military then you are a complete idiot.
> 
> Well................you are an idiot..............Now go ask daddy uncle sam for your Fing allowance,
Click to expand...



Fukkn liar, the US is VERY low taxed compared to other nations, AND YES, CONSIDERING THE US ECONOMY IS THE SIZE OF THE ENTIRE UE'S, I EXPECT TO SPEND A LOT, MORON!   AND the top 1/10th of 1% pay about 1/3rd what they did historically, 1945-1980, when the US had more patriots in their "job creator" classes!!!


HALF? lol


----------



## Billy000

Yes, that is the main source of the country's revenue.


----------



## bedowin62

B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-UT I GOT CHARTS!!!   CRIED THE LEFTARD


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................




Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!


----------



## bedowin62

YES WE NEED TAX RATES FROM AN ERA WHEN WE REALLY DID HAVE IMPERIALISTIC HEGEMONY AND....
 chinese were still riding around on bicycles in gray pantsuits

and we used to fund WWII and the Cold War

libs are idiots in a time warp


----------



## Dad2three

Billy000 said:


> Yes, that is the main source of the country's revenue.




45% of it is personal income taxes. And? It used to be 60% 40 years ago!


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!
Click to expand...

 


YAWN

 I missed the part where you answered the question.. why doesnt the Left just give more?


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> YES WE NEED TAX RATES FROM AN ERA WHEN WE REALLY DID HAVE IMPERIALISTIC HEGEMONY AND....
> chinese were still riding around on bicycles in gray pantsuits
> 
> and we used to fund WWII and the Cold War
> 
> libs are idiots in a time warp




Fukkn morons have no excuse to not understand the rich has bought Gov't, starting heavily with Reaganomics, and the bottom 90% of US have been left behind *shaking head*


----------



## bedowin62

50 years of "safety nets" and Poverty is at a FIFTY YEAR HIGH

 must be a coincidence

but it IS nice of you to want to help the poor people your failed left-wing ideology CREATED, and KEPT POOR


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> I missed the part where you answered the question.. why doesnt the Left just give more?
Click to expand...


Yeah, voluntary taxation works, look at your Klowns role model for it, Greece? lo;


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES WE NEED TAX RATES FROM AN ERA WHEN WE REALLY DID HAVE IMPERIALISTIC HEGEMONY AND....
> chinese were still riding around on bicycles in gray pantsuits
> 
> and we used to fund WWII and the Cold War
> 
> libs are idiots in a time warp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fukkn morons have no excuse to not understand the rich has bought Gov't, starting heavily with Reaganomics, and the bottom 90% of US have been left behind *shaking head*
Click to expand...

 

YAWN

 again, just have your left-wing gazillionaires give more


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> I missed the part where you answered the question.. why doesnt the Left just give more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, voluntary taxation works, look at your Klowns role model for it, Greece? lo;
Click to expand...

 

plenty of Hollywood gazillionaires running around speaking the same rhetoric as you


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> 50 years of "safety nets" and Poverty is at a FIFTY YEAR HIGH
> 
> must be a coincidence
> 
> but it IS nice of you to want to help the poor people your failed left-wing ideology CREATED, and KEPT POOR




Safety nets have only been around for 50 years? Read a fukkn history book Bubba

But yes,. like Harding/Coolidge's hole they put US in with their "let markets" work, Dubya did the same with his ponzi scheme and created the  worst recession since then!!!


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> I missed the part where you answered the question.. why doesnt the Left just give more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, voluntary taxation works, look at your Klowns role model for it, Greece? lo;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> plenty of Hollywood gazillionaires running around speaking the same rhetoric as you
Click to expand...


And? Fukkin moron


----------



## bedowin62

you dont mention that the european nations the left is ini love with have tax loopholes too

there goes your "effective tax rate" argument


keep trying


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee listening and reading the posts of these left-wing nutjobs you'd thinnk there are no gazillionaire left-wingers out there, having given all their wealth to the less fortunate
> 
> i guess they are waiting for others to make the first move.................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because THAT'S the way Gov't functions, by "giving" by choice, not Gov't policy like taxes. If the US had followed the conservatives, we would still have a tiny middle class, no social safety nets, the environment would still look like China today (smog), the "job creators" would still have company stores and we'd be speaking German!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> I missed the part where you answered the question.. why doesnt the Left just give more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, voluntary taxation works, look at your Klowns role model for it, Greece? lo;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> plenty of Hollywood gazillionaires running around speaking the same rhetoric as you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Fukkin moron
Click to expand...

\




tsk tsk tsk

such an angry left-wing nutjob


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "safety nets" and Poverty is at a FIFTY YEAR HIGH
> 
> must be a coincidence
> 
> but it IS nice of you to want to help the poor people your failed left-wing ideology CREATED, and KEPT POOR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safety nets have only been around for 50 years? Read a fukkn history book Bubba
> 
> But yes,. like Harding/Coolidge's hole they put US in with their "let markets" work, Dubya did the same with his ponzi scheme and created the  worst recession since then!!!
Click to expand...

 

you went to Talking-Points R Us today didnt you leftard???


----------



## bedowin62

you're in a sinking cesspool of a state

 i dont blame you for lashing out though


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> *More Warren Buffett Hypocrisy; Restructures Deal To Avoid ...*
> www.zerohedge.com/.../more-*warren*-*buffett*-*hypocrisy*-restr...
> 
> Cached
> Similar
> Zero Hedge
> Loading...
> Mar 18, 2014 - Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, *Warren Buffett* ... I've pointed out “Uncle” Warren's *hypocrisy* previously on these pages,
> 
> 
> i can copy and paste too



A PUBLIC CORP HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAXIMIZE CORP WEALTH/PROFIT? lol


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> you dont mention that the european nations the left is ini love with have tax loopholes too
> 
> there goes your "effective tax rate" argument
> 
> 
> keep trying



*How*

* Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries?*
As for the richest one or two percentiles of earners, we come in at practically the same place: 53rd-highest.






*But these numbers might understate how low taxes have been in the U.S. *Unlike most advanced economies, the U.S. don't supplement personal income taxes with a national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). Consumption taxes accounted for about a fifth of total U.S. revenue in 2008 (mostly at the state and local level) compared to an OECD average of 32 percent. In other words, the U.S. relies uniquely on personal tax rates to raise revenue -- and we have relatively low personal tax rates.


lol
How Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries - The Atlantic


*America the Undertaxed*

America the Undertaxed Foreign Affairs


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "safety nets" and Poverty is at a FIFTY YEAR HIGH
> 
> must be a coincidence
> 
> but it IS nice of you to want to help the poor people your failed left-wing ideology CREATED, and KEPT POOR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safety nets have only been around for 50 years? Read a fukkn history book Bubba
> 
> But yes,. like Harding/Coolidge's hole they put US in with their "let markets" work, Dubya did the same with his ponzi scheme and created the  worst recession since then!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you went to Talking-Points R Us today didnt you leftard???
Click to expand...


Got nothing else huh Bubs? Well Thanks anyways, I get it that about 20% of AmeriKans will NEVER have a brain and most of them are conservative knuckledraggers, like you and Faux's base. Have a great day moron!


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
Click to expand...



There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont mention that the european nations the left is ini love with have tax loopholes too
> 
> there goes your "effective tax rate" argument
> 
> 
> keep trying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How*
> 
> * Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries?*
> As for the richest one or two percentiles of earners, we come in at practically the same place: 53rd-highest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But these numbers might understate how low taxes have been in the U.S. *Unlike most advanced economies, the U.S. don't supplement personal income taxes with a national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). Consumption taxes accounted for about a fifth of total U.S. revenue in 2008 (mostly at the state and local level) compared to an OECD average of 32 percent. In other words, the U.S. relies uniquely on personal tax rates to raise revenue -- and we have relatively low personal tax rates.
> 
> 
> lol
> How Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> *America the Undertaxed*
> 
> America the Undertaxed Foreign Affairs
Click to expand...



So, you won't be satisfied until we have the highest taxes in the world, but we already knew that.


----------



## rightwinger

Under Eisenhower, upper tax rate was 90%...we built the interstate highway system

Under JFKand Johnson it is as 70% and we sent a man to the moon and passed Medicare and welfare

Under Reagan it dropped under 40%

What have we accomplished since?


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
Click to expand...


Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont mention that the european nations the left is ini love with have tax loopholes too
> 
> there goes your "effective tax rate" argument
> 
> 
> keep trying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How*
> 
> * Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries?*
> As for the richest one or two percentiles of earners, we come in at practically the same place: 53rd-highest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But these numbers might understate how low taxes have been in the U.S. *Unlike most advanced economies, the U.S. don't supplement personal income taxes with a national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). Consumption taxes accounted for about a fifth of total U.S. revenue in 2008 (mostly at the state and local level) compared to an OECD average of 32 percent. In other words, the U.S. relies uniquely on personal tax rates to raise revenue -- and we have relatively low personal tax rates.
> 
> 
> lol
> How Low Are U.S. Taxes Compared to Other Countries - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> *America the Undertaxed*
> 
> America the Undertaxed Foreign Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you won't be satisfied until we have the highest taxes in the world, but we already knew that.
Click to expand...


False premise, distortions and lies, the rights usual M/O


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of all federal gov't revenue is derived from personal income taxes. The top 10% of American earners carry 70% of the tax load. The top 25% of all earners carry 86% of the load. What would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Oh ... and the bottom 49% of all earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
> You get a free ride on the backs of everyone else.
> Quit your whining and start earning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
Click to expand...


Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
Click to expand...

They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
Click to expand...



Maybe if we had real economic growth....


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we had real economic growth....
Click to expand...

LUUK, BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING, IGNORE IRAQ, IGNORE BUSH, IGNORE LOW TAXES ON THE RICH, HURR DURR.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we had real economic growth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LUUK, BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING, IGNORE IRAQ, IGNORE BUSH, IGNORE LOW TAXES ON THE RICH, HURR DURR.
Click to expand...



You are a moron.   It's not surprising that you worship The Won.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we had real economic growth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LUUK, BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING, IGNORE IRAQ, IGNORE BUSH, IGNORE LOW TAXES ON THE RICH, HURR DURR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron.   It's not surprising that you worship The Won.
Click to expand...

I don't worship obama, but he's done the best he could.


----------



## SAYIT

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
Click to expand...


Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
You do know the diff, right Lefty?


----------



## David_42

SAYIT said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.


----------



## boedicca

SAYIT said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
Click to expand...


He messed up the script.   The Progs want Property Taxes on Wealth.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He messed up the script.   The Progs want Property Taxes on Wealth.
Click to expand...

What script? The script that says income inequality doesn't exist?


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
Click to expand...



BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage based on garbage. Shocking, the bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, about the same as the top 1/10th of 1% make
> 
> 
> *Historical Amount of Revenue by Source*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR, RUN AWAY BUBBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the PAYROLL TAX is a TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
Click to expand...



MOST investment income ISN'T treated as PAY, which Medicare taxes are based on Bubba, NO most investment ISN'T taxed for payroll purposes!

You mean the top 1/10th of 1% who make about the same as the bottom 50% of US  COMBINED income  a higher percentage of taxes even if they have about 70 million FAMILIES  on the bottom and 140,000 on the top???? lol. Yes, about 1/3rd what the top 1/10th of 1% paid in EFFECTIVE taxes 1945-1980 ON MUCH LESS INCOMES FOR THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%!!!

*Soaking the Poor, State by State*

That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay _twice_ the tax rate of the top 1 percent.* In the worst states, the poorest 20 percent pay five to six times the rate of the richest 1 percent. Lucky duckies indeed. *There's not one single state with a tax system that's progressive.


Soaking the Poor State by State Mother Jones


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He messed up the script.   The Progs want Property Taxes on Wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What script? The script that says income inequality doesn't exist?
Click to expand...



Oh NOEEESSSSSS!!!1!!!!  Income Inequality!!!!!!

What's next?  WHITE PRIVILEGE!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

(see, I put that in most caps so you'll understand.)


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
Click to expand...

When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
Click to expand...



I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing noise. Since when is income tax capped after a certain amount like SS? Hint neither SS or the OTHER INSURANCE programs (Medicare) is income taxes! Yes, it IS a tax ON income!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cap on medicare taxes, and an extra amount is taxed on for those at an upper middle class income level and above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, called PAYROLL taxes. Thanks for agreeing since those making income off of dividends/cap gains don't pay it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we had real economic growth....
Click to expand...


Wow, lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" in DECADES and record Corp profits as well as record low Corp tax burden and they aren't creating jobs? WHY ARE WE KEEPING THEIR TAXES LOW AGAIN????


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He messed up the script.   The Progs want Property Taxes on Wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What script? The script that says income inequality doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NOEEESSSSSS!!!1!!!!  Income Inequality!!!!!!
> 
> What's next?  WHITE PRIVILEGE!!!!!
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> 
> (see, I put that in most caps so you'll understand.)
Click to expand...

It seems to be that you're denying income inequality, that is at unprecedented levels.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality A Global Perspective


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
Click to expand...

Many different factors, although in america, it all seemed to worsen in the 70's.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
Click to expand...



CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!


----------



## SAYIT

David_42 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
Click to expand...


"They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David

Your loony leftist jealousy is showing. The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners already carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?


----------



## David_42

SAYIT said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
Click to expand...

Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..


----------



## boedicca

The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:

_Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”_

Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:
> 
> _Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
> 
> This is known as “bad luck.”_
> 
> Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.


Refer to the IMF studies. You're wrong.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:
> 
> _Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
> 
> This is known as “bad luck.”_
> 
> Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.
> 
> 
> 
> Refer to the IMF studies. You're wrong.
Click to expand...


You are thoroughly marinated in leftwing spew.


----------



## SAYIT

David_42 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
Click to expand...


You lefties just can't be honest. You whine about the wealth of others as though you would have us confiscate it to benefit the people _you_ prefer and claim not to want to raise the tax burden on the top 25% of American earners only to then admit (in the same sentence) that you really do. You fool no one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

David_42 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
Click to expand...


Oh, what do they have to pay?  

Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House?  Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment?  Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation.  Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!
Click to expand...


Three that are all lies. 

How about the real truth which is the American consumer has become cheap.  We flood our Wal-Mart stores to buy the cheapest Chinese garbage we can buy.  Stores like Wal-Mart cater to the demands of their customers, so they don't bring in more expensive American made products. 

You can't have the cheapest products and the best paying jobs.  It's impossible.  So producers look for ways to cut every corner they can to sell their goods to the American consumer, and that means low wage jobs and automation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Investors pay medicare taxes on investment income, bub.   And for all your class warfare nonsense, most "rich" people pay a higher overall share of their income on taxes than do The Poor.
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.


----------



## boedicca

Ray From Cleveland said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
Click to expand...


Everyone except for the Elite Overlords and their cronies.  It's not a coinkydink that Chavez' daughter is the richest women in Venezuela while the Small Folk can't afford toilet paper.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



So what you're saying then is gimme gimme gimme I want?


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:
> 
> _Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
> 
> This is known as “bad luck.”_
> 
> Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what do they have to pay?
> 
> Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House?  Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment?  Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation.  Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
Click to expand...




REAGANOMICS.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three that are all lies.
> 
> How about the real truth which is the American consumer has become cheap.  We flood our Wal-Mart stores to buy the cheapest Chinese garbage we can buy.  Stores like Wal-Mart cater to the demands of their customers, so they don't bring in more expensive American made products.
> 
> You can't have the cheapest products and the best paying jobs.  It's impossible.  So producers look for ways to cut every corner they can to sell their goods to the American consumer, and that means low wage jobs and automation.
Click to expand...


Weird you can't critically think and understand the 3 things are NOT mutually exclusive to your posit, but actually goes hand in hand. It's called GOV'T POLICY. Hint the US  USED to have tariffs (since the US Founding) that kept US jobs in America


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax. Maybe if the poor had higher wages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
Click to expand...


Only low informed or the ideologically driven don't understand NO serious person want economic equality for all, but less INEQUALITY at rates not since since the first Gilded Age. Weird you don't get that!



*This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality*







Everybody knows the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the top 1 percent. Income inequality was at Downton Abbey levels in the 1920s, fell between the 1940s and 1960, paused during the 1970s, and then exploded since the 1980s. It's gone so far that the top 1 percent now get as big a slice of the income pie—about 22 percent of it—as they ever have.

....It turns out, though, that even if a rising tide lifts all boats, most people can't afford a boat. *The bottom 90 percent, in other words, haven't done much better the last 30 years, even as the top 1 percent have created a second Gilded Age.*

This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> REAGANOMICS.




Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> 
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three that are all lies.
> 
> How about the real truth which is the American consumer has become cheap.  We flood our Wal-Mart stores to buy the cheapest Chinese garbage we can buy.  Stores like Wal-Mart cater to the demands of their customers, so they don't bring in more expensive American made products.
> 
> You can't have the cheapest products and the best paying jobs.  It's impossible.  So producers look for ways to cut every corner they can to sell their goods to the American consumer, and that means low wage jobs and automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird you can't critically think and understand the 3 things are NOT mutually exclusive to your posit, but actually goes hand in hand. It's called GOV'T POLICY. Hint the US  USED to have tariffs (since the US Founding) that kept US jobs in America
Click to expand...


So isolationism is your solution? 

If you remember back in the Bush years, he tried tariffs on imported steel.  It was a failed attempt because those countries placed tariffs on our exported goods to their country.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:
> 
> _Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
> 
> This is known as “bad luck.”_
> 
> Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.
Click to expand...


Ineptocracy -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots.
> Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH.
> Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME.
> You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only low informed or the ideologically driven don't understand NO serious person want economic equality for all, but less INEQUALITY at rates not since since the first Gilded Age. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> *This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knows the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the top 1 percent. Income inequality was at Downton Abbey levels in the 1920s, fell between the 1940s and 1960, paused during the 1970s, and then exploded since the 1980s. It's gone so far that the top 1 percent now get as big a slice of the income pie—about 22 percent of it—as they ever have.
> 
> ....It turns out, though, that even if a rising tide lifts all boats, most people can't afford a boat. *The bottom 90 percent, in other words, haven't done much better the last 30 years, even as the top 1 percent have created a second Gilded Age.*
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


"The liberal belief is that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are." 
Ken Blackwell. 

So who should be in charge of this wealth redistribution?  The government?  And just how would that work?  Taxation? 

So if the government would tax the wealthy, how does that help my paycheck?  How does that help me pay the mortgage, my car payment, the college for my children?   

Lying liberal politicians have been promoting this redistribution, however the reality is that if they ever had enough support, all that would do is transfer wealth from the producers to the government who would undoubtedly waste the money as history shows while at the same time, empower government even more.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
Click to expand...


Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three that are all lies.
> 
> How about the real truth which is the American consumer has become cheap.  We flood our Wal-Mart stores to buy the cheapest Chinese garbage we can buy.  Stores like Wal-Mart cater to the demands of their customers, so they don't bring in more expensive American made products.
> 
> You can't have the cheapest products and the best paying jobs.  It's impossible.  So producers look for ways to cut every corner they can to sell their goods to the American consumer, and that means low wage jobs and automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird you can't critically think and understand the 3 things are NOT mutually exclusive to your posit, but actually goes hand in hand. It's called GOV'T POLICY. Hint the US  USED to have tariffs (since the US Founding) that kept US jobs in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So isolationism is your solution?
> 
> If you remember back in the Bush years, he tried tariffs on imported steel.  It was a failed attempt because those countries placed tariffs on our exported goods to their country.
Click to expand...


Yep, DON'T critically think or be honest, just point to ONE small part of the puzzle and say it failed *shaking head*



NOT like Heritage Foundations NAFTA deal given to US the day Ronnie Reagan announced his run for Prez had ANYTHING to do with off shoring jobs, or the fact that there IS still tariffs in the world, yet the US has, BY FAR, the lowest tariffs.   

Nah, just take a bite and say MY solution MUST be to go back to that horrible time in the late 1980's when the US practiced "isolation" right? lol


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moonbats in this thread put me in mind of an R.A. Heinlein quote:
> 
> _Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
> 
> This is known as “bad luck.”_
> 
> Their redistributionist schemes are failing around the world, and yet they fail to understand why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ineptocracy -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubba, sure, NOT that the US has been captured by the rich, and the Repubs who don't "believe in" Gov't get elected then destroy it from within!


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
Click to expand...


Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only low informed or the ideologically driven don't understand NO serious person want economic equality for all, but less INEQUALITY at rates not since since the first Gilded Age. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> *This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knows the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the top 1 percent. Income inequality was at Downton Abbey levels in the 1920s, fell between the 1940s and 1960, paused during the 1970s, and then exploded since the 1980s. It's gone so far that the top 1 percent now get as big a slice of the income pie—about 22 percent of it—as they ever have.
> 
> ....It turns out, though, that even if a rising tide lifts all boats, most people can't afford a boat. *The bottom 90 percent, in other words, haven't done much better the last 30 years, even as the top 1 percent have created a second Gilded Age.*
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The liberal belief is that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
> Ken Blackwell.
> 
> So who should be in charge of this wealth redistribution?  The government?  And just how would that work?  Taxation?
> 
> So if the government would tax the wealthy, how does that help my paycheck?  How does that help me pay the mortgage, my car payment, the college for my children?
> 
> Lying liberal politicians have been promoting this redistribution, however the reality is that if they ever had enough support, all that would do is transfer wealth from the producers to the government who would undoubtedly waste the money as history shows while at the same time, empower government even more.
Click to expand...



Weird you are TYPICAL conservative who buys into the right wing memes. The US has ALWAYS used tax policy for redistribution dummy, read a gawddam history book








.....Ronald Reagan's answer to all this was to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate the economy. The idea was to give the top 1 percent the freedom and incentive to work more and invest more, which was supposed to make the economy grow more—and, yes, trickle down to everybody else. *It didn't*


This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
Click to expand...



Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The liberal belief is that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
> Ken Blackwell...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you are TYPICAL conservative who buys into the right wing memes...
Click to expand...


Yanno, if I thought you were kidding I'd be impressed with your sense of irony but as it is I'm certain you can't see it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> BFD.   Who cares how much wealth someone else has?  Only pea-green-with-envious people who constantly compare themselves to others.
> 
> 
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only low informed or the ideologically driven don't understand NO serious person want economic equality for all, but less INEQUALITY at rates not since since the first Gilded Age. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> *This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knows the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the top 1 percent. Income inequality was at Downton Abbey levels in the 1920s, fell between the 1940s and 1960, paused during the 1970s, and then exploded since the 1980s. It's gone so far that the top 1 percent now get as big a slice of the income pie—about 22 percent of it—as they ever have.
> 
> ....It turns out, though, that even if a rising tide lifts all boats, most people can't afford a boat. *The bottom 90 percent, in other words, haven't done much better the last 30 years, even as the top 1 percent have created a second Gilded Age.*
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The liberal belief is that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
> Ken Blackwell.
> 
> So who should be in charge of this wealth redistribution?  The government?  And just how would that work?  Taxation?
> 
> So if the government would tax the wealthy, how does that help my paycheck?  How does that help me pay the mortgage, my car payment, the college for my children?
> 
> Lying liberal politicians have been promoting this redistribution, however the reality is that if they ever had enough support, all that would do is transfer wealth from the producers to the government who would undoubtedly waste the money as history shows while at the same time, empower government even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you are TYPICAL conservative who buys into the right wing memes. The US has ALWAYS used tax policy for redistribution dummy, read a gawddam history book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....Ronald Reagan's answer to all this was to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate the economy. The idea was to give the top 1 percent the freedom and incentive to work more and invest more, which was supposed to make the economy grow more—and, yes, trickle down to everybody else. *It didn't*
> 
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


Yes the liberals have used government for redistribution.  And how has that worked out for us? Care to see a study on "ending poverty" the last 50 years and the results after trillions of dollars spent?  Just ask, I have it right here in my folder., 

Read a history book?  Okay, I will, and here is what I found: 

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents." 
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
Click to expand...


It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  If you want equality, then I suggest you go to Cuba and see how equity works when it comes to money.  Nearly everybody there is equally poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only low informed or the ideologically driven don't understand NO serious person want economic equality for all, but less INEQUALITY at rates not since since the first Gilded Age. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> *This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knows the story of the rise and fall and rise again of the top 1 percent. Income inequality was at Downton Abbey levels in the 1920s, fell between the 1940s and 1960, paused during the 1970s, and then exploded since the 1980s. It's gone so far that the top 1 percent now get as big a slice of the income pie—about 22 percent of it—as they ever have.
> 
> ....It turns out, though, that even if a rising tide lifts all boats, most people can't afford a boat. *The bottom 90 percent, in other words, haven't done much better the last 30 years, even as the top 1 percent have created a second Gilded Age.*
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The liberal belief is that if you create money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
> Ken Blackwell.
> 
> So who should be in charge of this wealth redistribution?  The government?  And just how would that work?  Taxation?
> 
> So if the government would tax the wealthy, how does that help my paycheck?  How does that help me pay the mortgage, my car payment, the college for my children?
> 
> Lying liberal politicians have been promoting this redistribution, however the reality is that if they ever had enough support, all that would do is transfer wealth from the producers to the government who would undoubtedly waste the money as history shows while at the same time, empower government even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you are TYPICAL conservative who buys into the right wing memes. The US has ALWAYS used tax policy for redistribution dummy, read a gawddam history book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....Ronald Reagan's answer to all this was to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate the economy. The idea was to give the top 1 percent the freedom and incentive to work more and invest more, which was supposed to make the economy grow more—and, yes, trickle down to everybody else. *It didn't*
> 
> 
> This chart explains everything you need to know about inequality - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the liberals have used government for redistribution.  And how has that worked out for us? Care to see a study on "ending poverty" the last 50 years and the results after trillions of dollars spent?  Just ask, I have it right here in my folder.,
> 
> Read a history book?  Okay, I will, and here is what I found:
> 
> "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
> James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
Click to expand...



Weird, how much has the US spent on wars? Have wars ended?

Madison? Oh right the guy who wanted the federal Gov't to have the ability to veto states laws!  Good thing SCOTUS said he was wrong right? BTW, That was from the Federalists papers though right (you know propaganda to get NY to vote for the Constitution)?

I like this better

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes _ad libitum_ for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the* welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”  TJ*



YES,REDISTRIBUTION WORKED PRETTY WELL 1945-19809. CAN YOU THINK OF WHAT CHANGED?







U.S. income inequality on rise for decades is now highest since 1928 Pew Research Center









SEE HOW THE EFFECTIVE RATES DROPPED FOR THE "JOB CREATORS"?







AND THIS:


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
Click to expand...


As continually noted (yet persistently ignored) it is and long has been America's largest earners who are paying for it while the weak earners get a free ride. I've repeatedly told you that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total fed personal income tax load. So rather than ignore that fact again, do tell what would satisfy your little socialist heart? 96%? 106%?


----------



## rightwinger

Put a sales tax on every stock transaction


----------



## Jantje_Smit

SAYIT said:


> As continually noted (yet persistently ignored) it is and long has been America's largest earners who are paying for it while the weak earners get a free ride. I've repeatedly told you that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total fed personal income tax load. So rather than ignore that fact again, do tell what would satisfy your little socialist heart? 96%? 106%?



With all those tax cuts the "job creators" get, I think 300% is very reasonable.


----------



## bedowin62

gotta love left-wing nutjobs and their charts!!


----------



## theHawk

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Aside from the fact that they already do pay much more than everyone else, how do you know that "the majority" of them are selfish and don't care about anybody?  How many millionaires do you know?


----------



## 2aguy

Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……

High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.


I pay a higher effective rate than Romney

With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon

What have we done since Reagan slashed them?


----------



## rightwinger

I happen to agree with conservatives that we need to incentivize job creators
Where I disagree is their defininition that all wealthy are job creators
If you create jobs you pay zero taxes. If you keep jobs in the U.S. you pay very low taxes
If you lay off people or ship jobs overseas.    You pay the price

Keep corporate taxes zero sum. Let the job exporters pay for tax cuts for job creators.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When income inequality continues to get worse worldwide, when the middle class has lost income over decades, when wages are stagnant, when the rich are recovering better then everyone else.. It's already been proven by the IMF that redistribution of wealth has more benefits then "trickle down" bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't accurate describe what has caused this situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CONservative policy like low taxes on "job creators", policy that off shores jobs AND gives the person tax benefits AND cons "free trade", to name 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three that are all lies.
> 
> How about the real truth which is the American consumer has become cheap.  We flood our Wal-Mart stores to buy the cheapest Chinese garbage we can buy.  Stores like Wal-Mart cater to the demands of their customers, so they don't bring in more expensive American made products.
> 
> You can't have the cheapest products and the best paying jobs.  It's impossible.  So producers look for ways to cut every corner they can to sell their goods to the American consumer, and that means low wage jobs and automation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird you can't critically think and understand the 3 things are NOT mutually exclusive to your posit, but actually goes hand in hand. It's called GOV'T POLICY. Hint the US  USED to have tariffs (since the US Founding) that kept US jobs in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So isolationism is your solution?
> 
> If you remember back in the Bush years, he tried tariffs on imported steel.  It was a failed attempt because those countries placed tariffs on our exported goods to their country.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem.


----------



## Slyhunter

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greekonomics - Outspend your ability to sustain or repay then hope some capitalists write a check to cover your failing "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
Click to expand...

I think you should only tax discretionary income. People who only make enough to survive shouldn't have to pay income taxes. So no taxes on the first 30k indexed to inflation. 

In fact minimum wage should be indexed to inflation too.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
Click to expand...



Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?  

Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.


----------



## boedicca

Slyhunter said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should only tax discretionary income. People who only make enough to survive shouldn't have to pay income taxes. So no taxes on the first 30k indexed to inflation.
> 
> In fact minimum wage should be indexed to inflation too.
Click to expand...



"Discretionary Income"?  As defined by whom?


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
Click to expand...

We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts


----------



## rightwinger

rightwinger said:


> I happen to agree with conservatives that we need to incentivize job creators
> Where I disagree is their defininition that all wealthy are job creators
> If you create jobs you pay zero taxes. If you keep jobs in the U.S. you pay very low taxes
> If you lay off people or ship jobs overseas.    You pay the price
> 
> Keep corporate taxes zero sum. Let the job exporters pay for tax cuts for job creators.


Make corporations compete for low taxes 
Create more jobs....pay less taxes


----------



## Slyhunter

boedicca said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should only tax discretionary income. People who only make enough to survive shouldn't have to pay income taxes. So no taxes on the first 30k indexed to inflation.
> 
> In fact minimum wage should be indexed to inflation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Discretionary Income"?  As defined by whom?
Click to expand...

I already defined it. The first 30k of income is for survival. Only tax the money made above that amount and move it up at the rate of inflation.


----------



## boedicca

Slyhunter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should only tax discretionary income. People who only make enough to survive shouldn't have to pay income taxes. So no taxes on the first 30k indexed to inflation.
> 
> In fact minimum wage should be indexed to inflation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Discretionary Income"?  As defined by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already defined it. The first 30k of income is for survival. Only tax the money made above that amount and move it up at the rate of inflation.
Click to expand...




What a stupid idea.   Why is it up to you are anyone else to determine what somebody else "needs" to survive?


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
Click to expand...



Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
Click to expand...



Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?


----------



## Slyhunter

boedicca said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should only tax discretionary income. People who only make enough to survive shouldn't have to pay income taxes. So no taxes on the first 30k indexed to inflation.
> 
> In fact minimum wage should be indexed to inflation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Discretionary Income"?  As defined by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already defined it. The first 30k of income is for survival. Only tax the money made above that amount and move it up at the rate of inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid idea.   Why is it up to you are anyone else to determine what somebody else "needs" to survive?
Click to expand...

It isnt up to me its up to realidtic cost of food car and rent. Plus if these peopke ever want to make more money they need to go to college. It would totally suck if college was reserved for rich folks only due to cost. The fact that your an ass who foesnt give a fuck about anyone other than himsel and his own is besides the point


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought cons would ;LOVE Greece and their  Gov't. They borrowed heavily and it's estimated they collect less than 60% of taxes owed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. Greece is a black eye for the worldwide socialist dream which explains the whirling dervish routine employed in defense of the profligate gov't policies, arrogance and Game-Theory playing that essentially crashed Greece's economy. Only loony leftists and anarchists could love what has become of Greece, and they do ... or at least they hate those who believe one should have the integrity to repay ones debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Heritage, CATO, AEI's, etc playbook Bubba. Good job...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is silly (but waaay typical) to assume that because you parrot the Socialists-R-Us.com handbook that everyone needs that sort of guidance to form their opinions. Some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves ... not that one such as you could possibly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot its not in the right wingers brain to actually have those that benefited the  very most the past 40 years, as debt increased, actually be expected to pay for it. How socialists of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As continually noted (yet persistently ignored) it is and long has been America's largest earners who are paying for it while the weak earners get a free ride. I've repeatedly told you that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total fed personal income tax load. So rather than ignore that fact again, do tell what would satisfy your little socialist heart? 96%? 106%?
Click to expand...



Weird, you mean the share of federal revenues less than half of income?

Lets not forget the top 25% take 70% of ALL US income. How much should they pay Bubs? lol


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.



Weird, you mean Romney paid a smaller percentage of his income than a plumber, baker or small Biz owner?

Yeah, when the top tax rate was 70%-94% the US sucked right? AND YES THE *EFFECTIVE *TAXES ON THE "JOB CREATORS" AT THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% WAS TRIPLE TODAYS!


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
Click to expand...


You are a fukkn liar,Ronnie's tax cuts COST the treasury money dummy. Grow a brain and get honest ONCE


When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s

Tax Cuts or Tax Redistribution?

When all was said and done, the total tax burden imposed on the American people from all sources—state and local taxes, federal income and capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes—remained basically unchanged throughout the 1980s. In the end, Reagan's reputation as a tax-cutter far outran his actual performance. 

Reagan's tax policies did, however, redistribute the tax burden significantly, even if they failed to reduce it overall. By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy, while increasing payroll taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class, Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale.* During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest one-fifth of American families actually increased by more than 16%. By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families fell by 5.5%, and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more: their tax rate fell by 14.4% (AS THEIR INCOMES SOARED)
*


Economy in The Reagan Era


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


It's the Inequality, Stupid


*Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." *

*Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*

*Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the  industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
Click to expand...


FDR made us the most powerful nation on earth. We had the seventeenth largest military in the world prior to FDR.....undisputed number one after


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
Click to expand...

Paid a higher percent in taxes than Romney  but then again I keep my money in the U.S.


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
Click to expand...



Weird how you fukkn morons try to change history all the time. Hint FDR was left a HUGE hole (like Obama) but had cut unemployment by nearly half when the conservatives demanded he do something on the deficit, so he cut spending 10% in 1937 and took US back into the GOP/Conservatives great depression!


----------



## danielpalos

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


Everyone knows the wealthiest should pay the finest Tax rates in our Republic, simply to prove they are worth it under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you fukkn morons try to change history all the time. Hint FDR was left a HUGE hole (like Obama) but had cut unemployment by nearly half when the conservatives demanded he do something on the deficit, so he cut spending 10% in 1937 and took US back into the GOP/Conservatives great depression!
Click to expand...



Nope, his tax increases, tariffs and screwing around with the courts and the economy buried the economy and if it wasn't for the destruction of the rest of the worlds industrial base, and Kennedy's tax cuts, we would still be in the crapper...


----------



## 2aguy

And here is a chart on the unemployment rate….

Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

*Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression*


even with WW2 approaching his screwed up policies kept us over 14% unemployment….while the depression of 1920, with no government intervention was over in a year…………..


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you fukkn morons try to change history all the time. Hint FDR was left a HUGE hole (like Obama) but had cut unemployment by nearly half when the conservatives demanded he do something on the deficit, so he cut spending 10% in 1937 and took US back into the GOP/Conservatives great depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, his tax increases, tariffs and screwing around with the courts and the economy buried the economy and if it wasn't for the destruction of the rest of the worlds industrial base, and Kennedy's tax cuts, we would still be in the crapper...
Click to expand...



Oh got it, opinions based on right wing "history" (created by AEI, Heritage, etc). Weird


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> And here is a chart on the unemployment rate….
> 
> Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
> 
> *Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression*
> 
> 
> even with WW2 approaching his screwed up policies kept us over 14% unemployment….while the depression of 1920, with no government intervention was over in a year…………..




Yep, unemployment was cut nearly in half by 1937, then FDR listened to the deficit scolds (conservatives, ALWAYS on the wrong side of history!)


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> And here is a chart on the unemployment rate….
> 
> Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
> 
> *Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression*
> 
> 
> even with WW2 approaching his screwed up policies kept us over 14% unemployment….while the depression of 1920, with no government intervention was over in a year…………..



*1921 and All That*


Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?





....
Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. *The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.*

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/


----------



## SAYIT

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
Click to expand...


Nope ... got there through war.


----------



## rightwinger

SAYIT said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope ... got there through war.
Click to expand...

Got there through massive borrowing and tax increases.


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fukkn liar,Ronnie's tax cuts COST the treasury money dummy. Grow a brain and get honest ONCE
> 
> 
> When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s
> 
> Tax Cuts or Tax Redistribution?
> 
> When all was said and done, the total tax burden imposed on the American people from all sources—state and local taxes, federal income and capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes—remained basically unchanged throughout the 1980s. In the end, Reagan's reputation as a tax-cutter far outran his actual performance.
> 
> Reagan's tax policies did, however, redistribute the tax burden significantly, even if they failed to reduce it overall. By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy, while increasing payroll taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class, Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale.* During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest one-fifth of American families actually increased by more than 16%. By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families fell by 5.5%, and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more: their tax rate fell by 14.4% (AS THEIR INCOMES SOARED)
> *
> 
> 
> Economy in The Reagan Era
> 
> 
> CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
> 
> 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
> 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
> Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
> 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
> 
> Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office
> 
> 
> 
> From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%
> 
> It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones
> 
> 
> It's the Inequality, Stupid
> 
> 
> *Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." *
> 
> *Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*
> 
> *Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*
Click to expand...



One good thing the Reagan tax cuts did was cut down on the use of tax-exempt bonds.........but that was largely done away with under Bush I.   Those restrictions should be reinstated.


----------



## Stephanie

Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> And here is a chart on the unemployment rate….
> 
> Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression
> 
> *Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression*
> 
> 
> even with WW2 approaching his screwed up policies kept us over 14% unemployment….while the depression of 1920, with no government intervention was over in a year…………..


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.


----------



## danielpalos

Stephanie said:


> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out


Nobody is claiming that.  What about full employment of resources in the market for labor; we can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope ... got there through war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got there through massive borrowing and tax increases.
Click to expand...



Nope, the industry and cities of all the advanced western nations were rubble.........our country had the only intact industry..........that is how we leapt ahead of everyone........that and Kennedy lowered taxes....


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is claiming that.  What about full employment of resources in the market for labor; we can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
Click to expand...



socialism kills capitalism...


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you fukkn morons try to change history all the time. Hint FDR was left a HUGE hole (like Obama) but had cut unemployment by nearly half when the conservatives demanded he do something on the deficit, so he cut spending 10% in 1937 and took US back into the GOP/Conservatives great depression!
Click to expand...


If Democrats hadn't had a part in the recession, you would have something. As far as I'm concerned, both party's contributed and both let that assholes off that caused the problem.

Enron and WorldComm CEOs went to jail. Obama and his cronies did nothing but fine them for a fraction of what taxpayers gave them in TARP money. 

Taxpayers get to bend over while Congress babies Wall St. and Dems will support the biggest Wall St. crony which is Hillary.

When Dems support a rich crony like Clinton, it is tough to believe the BS about taxing rich, income equality and the like when you vote support Wall St. Favorite candidate.


----------



## Dad2three

Stephanie said:


> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out




lol, Grow up and grow a brain. No one was taxed at 100% in France, and they are still doing Biz there. Get off right wing talking points! 

Weird how the richest of the rich used to pay EFFECTIVE rates of 50%-70% from 1932-1980 (on MUCH less shares of income) and we still had Biz and "job creators" in the US? hmm


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope ... got there through war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got there through massive borrowing and tax increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the industry and cities of all the advanced western nations were rubble.........our country had the only intact industry..........that is how we leapt ahead of everyone........that and Kennedy lowered taxes....
Click to expand...

Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry and created an economic miracle.


----------



## SAYIT

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the  industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR made us the most powerful nation on earth. We had the seventeenth largest military in the world prior to FDR.....undisputed number one after
Click to expand...


Gee, I wonder if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had anything to do with the improvement and if becoming #1 had anything to do with America climbing out of the Great Depression? I also wonder if the fact that the rest of the industrialized world had been reduced to rubble in WW2 (while America escaped pretty much untouched) had anything to do with our economic success over the next 3 decades. Just wondering out loud.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is claiming that.  What about full employment of resources in the market for labor; we can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> socialism kills capitalism...
Click to expand...

Bullshit

How is Sweden and Finland doing?


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a higher effective rate than Romney
> 
> With higher top tier tax rates we paid for WWII, built the interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon
> 
> What have we done since Reagan slashed them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million dollars in taxes?
> 
> Become the most powerful nation on earth…until the democrats spent all of the tax revenue his tax cuts created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We became the most powerful nation on earth under FDR. Didn't get there through tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> 
> Sorry, fdr kept us in a depression for his entire term in office, had the rest of the world's industry not been bombed we would have been there still……...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you fukkn morons try to change history all the time. Hint FDR was left a HUGE hole (like Obama) but had cut unemployment by nearly half when the conservatives demanded he do something on the deficit, so he cut spending 10% in 1937 and took US back into the GOP/Conservatives great depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Democrats hadn't had a part in the recession, you would have something. As far as I'm concerned, both party's contributed and both let that assholes off that caused the problem.
> 
> Enron and WorldComm CEOs went to jail. Obama and his cronies did nothing but fine them for a fraction of what taxpayers gave them in TARP money.
> 
> Taxpayers get to bend over while Congress babies Wall St. and Dems will support the biggest Wall St. crony which is Hillary.
> 
> When Dems support a rich crony like Clinton, it is tough to believe the BS about taxing rich, income equality and the like when you vote support Wall St. Favorite candidate.
Click to expand...



Yes, the "both parties" BS



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive.* 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.*


* In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier*


FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899


*ONE PARTY HAD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITH THE FBI, HUD (F/F), SEC, etc*


Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*




*Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*YEAH, WEIRD HOW THE RIGHT WING KLOWNS NEVER ACCEPT THAT THE GUYS WHO "BELIEVE IN "FREE MARKETS" AND GOV'T IS THE PROBLEM, ALLOWS THINGS LIKE REAGAN'S S&L AND DUBYA'S SUBPRIMES BUBBLE! *


----------



## SAYIT

rightwinger said:


> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...



It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.


----------



## SAYIT

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is claiming that.  What about full employment of resources in the market for labor; we can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> socialism kills capitalism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> How is Sweden and Finland doing?
Click to expand...


That's about the dimmest argument any loony leftist can try to make. Comparing the US with Sweden and Finland is silliness. Try using a more equitable comparison, saaay, the US and the USSR.
Oh, wait ... that "Worker's Paradise" already bit the dust.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you all want to run the people out of this country who uses their money to open business and employ people. go ahead tax them 100%. they tried that in France. go research how that turned out
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is claiming that.  What about full employment of resources in the market for labor; we can use socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> socialism kills capitalism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> How is Sweden and Finland doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about the dimmest argument any loony leftist can try to make. Comparing the US with Sweden and Finland is silliness. Try using a more equitable comparison, saaay, the US and the USSR.
> Oh, wait ... that "Worker's Paradise" already bit the dust.
Click to expand...



'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'


----------



## Papageorgio

Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.

The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.


----------



## SAYIT

SAYIT said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
Click to expand...




Dad2three said:


> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'



Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?


----------



## dblack

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves!



Just kill them.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.




Sure Bubs, sure




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that *turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*


















We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President (DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.


*A Snapshot of the Subprime Market*


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

*Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



* Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%*


* Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%*


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%



*Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%*


*Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%*


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
Click to expand...



Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.



Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc


----------



## frigidweirdo

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Yes. Generally because rich people use more of the services that the government provides than poor people.


Poor people get a "free"* (at the point of delivery) education. Rich people a "free" education (even if they don't use it) PLUS they get a whole market of employees to choose from who have also been given an education. 

Poor people get a little security from the police and armed forces, the rich get a lot more security as they probably own more places that have police coverage, are more likely to benefit from foreign affairs and more likely to benefit from wars and defense. 

Poor people are likely to use the roads around their home and on the way to work and school and stuff. Rich people use roads to transport all their stuff. 

Many things the rich get more of, which is why they should pay more in tax. I'd actually be in favor of breaking down taxes and showing people why they're paying what they're paying. Rich people would probably see they're getting a massive bargain.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
Click to expand...


I'm not a GOPer.

Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies. 

Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.

You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich. 

I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that? 

Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth. 

How can anyone support any of them?


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
Click to expand...


SURE Bubba, sure "both sides" lol



ANYTHING particular in the graph here Bubs? That on Clinton?








OCT 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that *turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*




*Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists*

*If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09*, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, *none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. *Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

*As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. *Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

GLB didn’t cause the financial crisis—and, when push comes to shove, the regulatory evangelists must admit as much. Stiglitz, in the same _Vanity Fair_ article, concedes that Glass-Steagall did nothing to “directly” cause the crisis. Warren, meanwhile, confessed to _New York Times _reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin that Glass-Steagall would probably not have stopped the financial crisis, but that she was pushing to reinstate it because, in Sorkin’s words, “it is an easy issue for the public to understand and ‘you can build public attention behind.’”


Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists

Yeah , YOU aren't a GOPer, just someone who votes for them, lol


HINT ELECT GUYS LIKE REAGAN/DUBYA AND YOU ARE SHOCKED THEY TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE "PRIVATE MARKETS" AS THEY RAPE US? Yes, EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!!!


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
Click to expand...



I step this up a bit, YES, Clinton signed a deregulation bill pushed by Banksters for 30 years, supported by the GOP. The few votes against? DEMOCRATIC. But the repeal of G/S had almost zero to do with Dubya's REGULATOR failure!


*Bailout Tracker*
Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient

*Detailed Breakdown*
$615.4B
Outflows

*
Disbursed
Banks and other Financial Institutions $245B
Fannie and Freddie $187B
Auto Companies $79.7B
AIG $67.8B
Toxic Asset Purchases $18.6B
Mortgage Mod Program $10.6B
State Housing Programs $5.51B
Small Business Loan Aid $368M
FHA Refinance Program $60M
$672.7B
Inflows

Refunds  $390B
Money returned to Treasury by bailed-out companies.
Dividends  $252B
Revenue Treasury has earned on its investments through dividend payments.
Interest  $1.81B
Revenue Treasury has earned through its loans through interest payments.
Warrants  $9.63B
Revenue Treasury has earned from selling stock warrants it held on companies that have paid back its investment.
Other Proceeds $19.6B
Revenue from fees and sales of equity or other assets.
Profit: $57.3B 
Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica
*


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
Click to expand...



We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?

Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis

Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US 



Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO

*Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*

* BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

*“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Click to expand...


Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.

Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation

Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation



Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig


----------



## danielpalos

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I step this up a bit, YES, Clinton signed a deregulation bill pushed by Banksters for 30 years, supported by the GOP. The few votes against? DEMOCRATIC. But the repeal of G/S had almost zero to do with Dubya's REGULATOR failure!
> 
> 
> *Bailout Tracker*
> Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient
> 
> *Detailed Breakdown*
> $615.4B
> Outflows
> 
> *
> Disbursed
> Banks and other Financial Institutions $245B
> Fannie and Freddie $187B
> Auto Companies $79.7B
> AIG $67.8B
> Toxic Asset Purchases $18.6B
> Mortgage Mod Program $10.6B
> State Housing Programs $5.51B
> Small Business Loan Aid $368M
> FHA Refinance Program $60M
> $672.7B
> Inflows
> 
> Refunds  $390B
> Money returned to Treasury by bailed-out companies.
> Dividends  $252B
> Revenue Treasury has earned on its investments through dividend payments.
> Interest  $1.81B
> Revenue Treasury has earned through its loans through interest payments.
> Warrants  $9.63B
> Revenue Treasury has earned from selling stock warrants it held on companies that have paid back its investment.
> Other Proceeds $19.6B
> Revenue from fees and sales of equity or other assets.
> Profit: $57.3B
> Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica*
Click to expand...

I thought only short-sellers need financial meltdowns to make a profit,


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.
> 
> Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation
> 
> Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig
Click to expand...


Yep, BJ Bill was the best conservative Prez since Ike. Obama looks to be coming in second place. AND?

_Robert Scheer is the author of _The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street


I CAN'T HELP IT IF HE DOESN'T SEE IT AS REGULATOR FAILURE IT WAS BUBBA. G/S HAD ALMOST ZERO TO DO WITH DUBYA CHEERING ON A *WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!! *


TIMELINE:

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,* beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008*


*Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn.* *Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself*. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


"*(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay*."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."



DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush Increasing Homeownership

He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


*Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.*


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.
> 
> Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation
> 
> Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig
Click to expand...



Robert Scheer


*Support of Republican candidate for Kentucky Senate*


In the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show _Left, Right and Center_, Scheer, a self-described liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat


----------



## Dad2three

``


Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.
> 
> Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation
> 
> Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig
Click to expand...


CLINTON'S FAULT TOO?

Jun 16th 2005

*The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops *

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by _The Economist_, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs.

Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


*REGULATOR FAILURE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUBS*



DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


----------



## danielpalos

Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.

End the work tax.


----------



## Dad2three

danielpalos said:


> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.




Instead the unearned income is taxed at about half the "earned" rates *AND over half of ALL capital gains and dividends goes to only the top 1/10th of 1% *anyways!


----------



## danielpalos

Dad2three said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead the unearned income is taxed at about half the "earned" rates *AND over half of ALL capital gains and dividends goes to only the top 1/10th of 1% *anyways!
Click to expand...

why bother having a social work ethic instead of a capital work ethic.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Sorry but under Clinton and his cronies, they took a lot of the safety nets away that had been put into place decades ago. The mortgage bubble was the last bubble that we could ride and we couldn't shift to another bubble. Before we had dot.com bubbles and building bubbles and had credit bubbles. In the 90's people were remortgaging their homes at 125% of value, then going back into debt. We were living on credit and lots of debt. We can't do that and be a healthy nation.
> 
> The issue is the same cronies that were high up in the Clinton admin. Were in the Bush and the Obama admin. Crooks are crooks are crooks and both political parties are corrupt. I don't defend Republicans but I won't defend the Democrats. They both stink and as soon as we decide that both parties are corrupt, then we can fix them but as long as we support the status quo, we are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.
> 
> Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation
> 
> Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer
> 
> 
> *Support of Republican candidate for Kentucky Senate*
> 
> 
> In the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show _Left, Right and Center_, Scheer, a self-described liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat
Click to expand...


Yep, he is a true liberal, one that doesn't see Republican or Democrat. He looks at his principles and works from there. I don't agree with him all the time but I admire his sticking to his principles. He is able to make decisions on his own, not have to listen to his party to form an opinion.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.



Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how the GOPers NEVER accept responsibility for policies they failed under them, be it "supply side", "free trade", S&L crisis, 9/11, Dubya's subprime bubble, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a GOPer.
> 
> Funny how democrats don't accept responsibility for their policies.
> 
> Clinton reversing several regulations in the 90's that led to the Great Recession, also the recession that started a month and a half after a democrat left office.
> 
> You can argue all you want about whose fault it is. I blame both sides, they are both corrupt and they both hate the middle class. It is rich corrupt politicians, writing bills and policies for the rich.
> 
> I wonder why no one went after those bankers after the recession began. Hmmmm... Oh wait they were fined and they paid a fraction of their TARP money back. Why don't Dems take responsibility for that?
> 
> Please spare the defense of either party. Look at the candidates on both sides of the aisle. They all are terrible picks and the Dems front runner is the most corrupt. The GOP front runner is an abrasive loudmouth.
> 
> How can anyone support any of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?
> 
> Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis
> 
> Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US
> 
> 
> 
> Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO
> 
> *Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street*
> 
> * BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008*
> 
> Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR
> 
> *“When regulators don’t believe in regulation *and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“*If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all
> 
> The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> '
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. Here is what a true liberal thinks of the last two democratic administrations.
> 
> Obama Is Trying to Fix Inequality by Hiring the Same Hacks Who Caused It The Nation
> 
> Obama s Friends in Low Places The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer Bill Clinton s Legacy of Denial - Robert Scheer -Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Scheer
> 
> 
> *Support of Republican candidate for Kentucky Senate*
> 
> 
> In the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show _Left, Right and Center_, Scheer, a self-described liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, he is a true liberal, one that doesn't see Republican or Democrat. He looks at his principles and works from there. I don't agree with him all the time but I admire his sticking to his principles. He is able to make decisions on his own, not have to listen to his party to form an opinion.
Click to expand...



Yep, he blamed the Banksters for a WORLD wide credit bubble. But he's wrong about "deregulation" causing the Dubya subprime bubble, it was simple regulator failure, just like Ronnie's S&L debacle


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
Click to expand...



Yet he supports a AMT tax on the "job creators" weird right?


----------



## EatMorChikin

They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he supports a AMT tax on the "job creators" weird right?
Click to expand...


Who is he? Daniel?


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
Click to expand...


*Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*

Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.

The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.

“That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years. 

*
Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*” 


The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."

Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income


Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing


GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!


----------



## Dad2three

EatMorChikin said:


> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.




A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he supports a AMT tax on the "job creators" weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is he? Daniel?
Click to expand...


Buffet, educate yourself versus using right wing loon talking points Bubba!


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
Click to expand...


I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
Click to expand...



*Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*

Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.

The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, *whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.*

“That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.

*
Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”


The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."

*Specifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income


Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing


GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!


HE SUPPORTED OBAMA 28% AMT ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES DUMMY!, WHICH TODAY THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT 17% (14% FOR ROMNEY!!!!) !


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he supports a AMT tax on the "job creators" weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is he? Daniel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffet, educate yourself versus using right wing loon talking points Bubba!
Click to expand...


Gee the name calling is cool when you are beaten. That or an inferiority complex. Maybe it is because of a limited social skill. Interesting none the less.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> *Specifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> 
> HE SUPPORTED OBAMA 28% AMT ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES DUMMY!, WHICH TODAY THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT 17% (14% FOR ROMNEY!!!!) !
Click to expand...


Hmmm...a psychologist told me there were many reasons people call other names. Another is an inability to communicate, in speech or writing because many lack the vocabulary or have poor writing skills.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
Click to expand...


Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!



.


*Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he supports a AMT tax on the "job creators" weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is he? Daniel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffet, educate yourself versus using right wing loon talking points Bubba!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee the name calling is cool when you are beaten. That or an inferiority complex. Maybe it is because of a limited social skill. Interesting none the less.
Click to expand...


Yet even though shown your "feelings" (most of what you "believe in")  are wrong, I'm positive it will not stop you from writing Buffett doesn't support raising taxes on unearned Cap gains/Dividends or Dubya's regulator failure (Like Ronnie's S&L crisis) was a direct result of bad executive branch oversight!!!!


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
Click to expand...


I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
Click to expand...



YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
Click to expand...


Right wing talk shows, like Mike and Mike, Russillo, or maybe it is the George Sedano show, which sports talk personality are you talking about. That is all the talk radio I listen to. I used to listen to the Herd but he is pretty liberal.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
Click to expand...


Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right wing talk shows, like Mike and Mike, Russillo, or maybe it is the George Sedano show, which sports talk personality are you talking about. That is all the talk radio I listen to. I used to listen to the Herd but he is pretty liberal.
Click to expand...


Naturally this ignorant and dishonest then huh?


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
Click to expand...



Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
Click to expand...


Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right wing talk shows, like Mike and Mike, Russillo, or maybe it is the George Sedano show, which sports talk personality are you talking about. That is all the talk radio I listen to. I used to listen to the Herd but he is pretty liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturally this ignorant and dishonest then huh?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I'm trying to figure out which of those talk shows, that I listen to is right wing hate propaganda. You made the claim that is what I listen to, I just can't figure out which one. You seem to think you are all knowing. Please enlighten me. Or did you make the wrong ASSumption again?


----------



## DCJ

Yes.............

To whom more is given, more is required............


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.
Click to expand...


OR after debunking the false premises put forward by the low informed right winger, they decide, fukk it, they aren't worthy of respect since they NEVER seem to accept ANY responsibility for their lies or mischaracterizations!


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
Click to expand...


My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
Click to expand...



*Warren Buffett:

"I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that."*

A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.


TODAY THE TOP 400 PAY LESS THAN 15%
Warren Buffett Renews Call For Minimum Tax On The Ultra-Wealthy ThinkProgress


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
> BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
Click to expand...



Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol

Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR after debunking the false premises put forward by the low informed right winger, they decide, fukk it, they aren't worthy of respect since they NEVER seem to accept ANY responsibility for their lies or mischaracterizations!
Click to expand...


Yanno, having scrolled through a couple hundred of your posts and found that "low informed right winger" pap a persistent response to those who clearly know way more than you, I have come to the conclusion you are a socialist troll. So my question is who sends you here every few months to spam these threads with your silly socialist BS?


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
> BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
> 
> Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
Click to expand...


Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?


----------



## Wyatt earp

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR after debunking the false premises put forward by the low informed right winger, they decide, fukk it, they aren't worthy of respect since they NEVER seem to accept ANY responsibility for their lies or mischaracterizations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, having scrolled through a couple hundred of your posts and found that "low informed right winger" pap a persistent response to those who clearly know way more than you, I have come to the conclusion you are a socialist troll. So my question is who sends you here every few months to spam these threads with your silly socialist BS?
Click to expand...

 I was wondering the same thing.....


----------



## SAYIT

DCJ said:


> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............



And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?


----------



## EatMorChikin

Dad2three said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!
Click to expand...


Are you a tax attorney?

I'm going to speed this up and guess that you are not.

Have you ever sued the IRS?

If you can read code, why not read the tax code, it's all in there.

I will discuss this no more, with someone who isn't qualified.

The federal government is just going to declare taxes voluntary, that is funny stuff.


----------



## SAYIT

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
Click to expand...


And clearly D2Three is here to spew baseless socialist BS and when exposed, to pepper his betters with invective. Nearly 10,000 posts in little more than a year with months off for bad behavior. Having perused a couple hundred of his posts his pattern repeats itself ad nauseam.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
Click to expand...


But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services. 

Are they paying their way? Probably not. 

Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.


----------



## bedowin62

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
Click to expand...

 

you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"


----------



## frigidweirdo

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
Click to expand...


Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.


----------



## bedowin62

frigidweirdo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
Click to expand...

 
you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................


----------



## frigidweirdo

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
Click to expand...


No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place. 

So, again, BYE.


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
Click to expand...


That is absurd on its face but you now have the opportunity to look at facts (not that they will change your thinking). None of the following establishes the top 25% of American earners as greater users of gov't services than the gen pop. In fact, it clearly establishes the bottom 49% - those who contribute NOTHING - as the biggest beneficiaries by far:

Federal budget 2014 $3.6 trillion

Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare) $1.8 trillion (49%)
Income Security (Fed employee retirement & disability, unemployment comp, food & housing assistance) $720 billion (20%).
National Security (military) $650 billion (18%).
Interest on national debt $320 billion (6%)
Transportation & Education $210 billion (4%)


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place.
> 
> So, again, BYE.
Click to expand...


The fact is you are so often insulted because you make such ridiculous (and, of course, unfounded) claims such as "But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." Just typical socialist silliness.


----------



## Papageorgio

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
Click to expand...


Where did you get your information? Is that of the top of your head or has it been established somewhere? If so can you provide the link? Thank you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what do they have to pay?
> 
> Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House?  Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment?  Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation.  Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
Click to expand...


Yo Dumb2Three; your graph shows most of the gain by those you're jealous of ocuring during the CLINTON years. Reagan wasn't president during the 90's stupid.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absurd on its face but you now have the opportunity to look at facts (not that they will change your thinking). None of the following establishes the top 25% of American earners as greater users of gov't services than the gen pop. In fact, it clearly establishes the bottom 49% - those who contribute NOTHING - as the biggest beneficiaries by far:
> 
> Federal budget 2014 $3.6 trillion
> 
> Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare) $1.8 trillion (49%)
> Income Security (Fed employee retirement & disability, unemployment comp, food & housing assistance) $720 billion (20%).
> National Security (military) $650 billion (18%).
> Interest on national debt $320 billion (6%)
> Transportation & Education $210 billion (4%)
Click to expand...



The problem is, what does a rich person get out of the federal govt? 

Healthcare? Well they get employees with decent health. Does this improve performance at work, reduce sick days which affects performance and so on? Sure it does. That's 24%

Defense? Well, defense provides how many jobs? Provides innovations in technology that allow companies to reduce costs. How much money does the warring around the world make US companies? Halliburton did amazingly well out of the 2003 war. How many US oil companies are doing well in Iraq? 

That's be Exxon and Occidental. Exxon just happens to make the most revenue at $967,432,500 a year. A British company is second, BP, Occidental is still making $205,334,400 a year. How much do they pay in taxes? Enough to cover for the Iraqi War and post occupation? I doubt it. Who pays for this? Yeah, sure, many people who don't get much out of it at all, rather than the companies and the shareholders of these companies. 

BP, British, biggest shareholder is BlackRock, based in NY City. Laurence Fink, Americans, is the Chairman.
The Co-Presidents, one is American, the other was Filipino but seems to be American, lives in Scarsdale. 

Third largest is Barclay's Global Investors. Owned by BlackRock.

Also in the top 10 is Capital Research and Management Co. An LA based US company. 

You see that a lot of things tie in with other things and the US is spending a LOT of money helping a lot of people get rich. And then they turn around and say "I shouldn't have to give the government anything, this is MY money". 

Rubbish.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Papageorgio said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get your information? Is that of the top of your head or has it been established somewhere? If so can you provide the link? Thank you.
Click to expand...


It was in response to the previous post. It's not possible to give a statistic for what I said, simply because it'd be impossible to take every small thing and work out how much every person uses govt funding. 

You'd need to figure out how much of a percentage these people use the roads. I mean, take statistics for private use and take it for corporate use. These stats just don't exist.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place.
> 
> So, again, BYE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is you are so often insulted because you make such ridiculous (and, of course, unfounded) claims such as "But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." Just typical socialist silliness.
Click to expand...


Oh, so it's okay to insult someone if YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM?

Come off it, you're scrambling around in the dirt looking for an excuse as to why you needed an insult INSTEAD of actually providing opinion. You insulted me, and the debate is over. Don't try and make pathetic excuses as to why you need to insult people.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what do they have to pay?
> 
> Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House?  Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment?  Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation.  Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo Dumb2Three; your graph shows most of the gain by those you're jealous of ocuring during the CLINTON years. Reagan wasn't president during the 90's stupid.
Click to expand...


Anyone that quotes cartoons and Bill Maher as sources ain't too bright.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
> 
> 1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
> We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have an income tax, we will still have the IRS and all the accountants, tax attorneys and IRS bean counters will keep their jobs.  The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the income tax and switch to a consumption tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Yeah, great idea, punish the poor more then anyone else.
Click to expand...

The FAIR tax exempts the poor.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Click to expand...

Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts don't cost money.  Tax cuts reduce the money coming in.  If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol
> 
> Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!
> 
> Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%
Click to expand...

Bullshit.  Tax revenues increased under both.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR after debunking the false premises put forward by the low informed right winger, they decide, fukk it, they aren't worthy of respect since they NEVER seem to accept ANY responsibility for their lies or mischaracterizations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, having scrolled through a couple hundred of your posts and found that "low informed right winger" pap a persistent response to those who clearly know way more than you, I have come to the conclusion you are a socialist troll. So my question is who sends you here every few months to spam these threads with your silly socialist BS?
Click to expand...



Your Bullshit response to well thought out responses with links to credible sources is noted Bubba


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
> BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
> 
> Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
> BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
> Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?
Click to expand...


Weird, did I make some claim I haven't backed up? Didn't think so Bubba


PLEASE though, give me just 3 POLICIES conservatives have been on the correct side of history the past 40 years? 60 years? 100? How about going back to the US Founding? Just 3 please, oops


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
Click to expand...



Yep the top 25% pay 85% of the INCOME tax load (which is less than 50% of ALL federal revenues) yet they "earn" 70% of ALL income. HMM


And the bottom 50% "free riders" make about 11% of ALL US income, a reduction of the pie of nearly $5,000 PER family since Reaganomics. Go figure they are not paying that piece of the pie less than 50% of fed revenues, INCOME taxes!


----------



## Dad2three

EatMorChikin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a tax attorney?
> 
> I'm going to speed this up and guess that you are not.
> 
> Have you ever sued the IRS?
> 
> If you can read code, why not read the tax code, it's all in there.
> 
> I will discuss this no more, with someone who isn't qualified.
> 
> The federal government is just going to declare taxes voluntary, that is funny stuff.
Click to expand...


lol, History says YOU are a fukkn loon Bubba. Don't get butt hurt because of the truth


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
> BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
> BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
> 
> Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
> BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
> Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did I make some claim I haven't backed up? Didn't think so Bubba
> 
> 
> PLEASE though, give me just 3 POLICIES conservatives have been on the correct side of history the past 40 years? 60 years? 100? How about going back to the US Founding? Just 3 please, oops
Click to expand...

 



I CAN DO THAT LEFTARD; the easy answer is ALL OF THEM!1
 after all idiot, the policies you say the Right has been wrong on have and were all voted for and even EXTENDED AND CONTINUED BY DEMOCRATS.

want the list stupid?


----------



## bedowin62

an easier question for this loser lefty would be what republican policy or law DIDNT Democrats vote in huge numbers to continue, fund, extend even...etc.
its' a much shorter list

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## bedowin62

obama EXTENDED the Bush tax cuts, ALL OF THEM EVEN FOR THE HIGHEST BRACKETS, and extended them AFTER they were to "sunset"; and OBAMA did this WHEN HE STILL HAD DEM-MAJORITIES IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS


----------



## bedowin62

No Child????????????????????

bi-partisan vote

home loans to people that were risky??   DEMS UP TO THEIR NECKS IN THAT


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And clearly D2Three is here to spew baseless socialist BS and when exposed, to pepper his betters with invective. Nearly 10,000 posts in little more than a year with months off for bad behavior. Having perused a couple hundred of his posts his pattern repeats itself ad nauseam.
Click to expand...



The rights inability (like Paps BS premise that Buffett doesn't want his tax rates to increase, as HIS proposals would double his tax burden) to be honest is noted Bubba.

Socialists? Yep, just like the Founders who created a SOCIETY. You Klowns should try to understand what socialism ACTUALLY means Bubs

The right wing echo chamber sure has done a good job of having their reactionaries react with knew jerk to "socialists" lol


----------



## rightwinger

SAYIT said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long before the rubble, FDR nationalized all industry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.
Click to expand...

Is that the best you got?

Go for it and we can discuss


----------



## rightwinger

EatMorChikin said:


> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.


Too funny


----------



## bedowin62

IRAQ WAR

hundreds of dems cast literally thousands of votes to continue funding it for a decade


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't "unearned" income be taxed at a higher rate than "earned" income.
> 
> End the work tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the rich write the laws for the rich. That is why Buffett wants taxes raised, he knows it will be earned income that is taxed not his unearned, which the rich usually make more at.
Click to expand...

That is why we need to tax stock transactions


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> IRAQ WAR
> 
> hundreds of dems cast literally thousands of votes to continue funding it for a decade


Once you have boots on the ground it is hard to pull their funding. Republicans thrive on that


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep the top 25% pay 85% of the INCOME tax load (which is less than 50% of ALL federal revenues) yet they "earn" 70% of ALL income. HMM
> 
> 
> And the bottom 50% "free riders" make about 11% of ALL US income, a reduction of the pie of nearly $5,000 PER family since Reaganomics. Go figure they are not paying that piece of the pie less than 50% of fed revenues, INCOME taxes!
Click to expand...

 

you say "since Reaganomics" without a shred of irony left-wing nutjob. you DO realize Mr Know-it-all that so many Democrats in congress voted for Reagan's policies the term Reagan Democrat was coined?

you DO realize Reagan had a Dem-majority House all 8 years?


libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absurd on its face but you now have the opportunity to look at facts (not that they will change your thinking). None of the following establishes the top 25% of American earners as greater users of gov't services than the gen pop. In fact, it clearly establishes the bottom 49% - those who contribute NOTHING - as the biggest beneficiaries by far:
> 
> Federal budget 2014 $3.6 trillion
> 
> Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare) $1.8 trillion (49%)
> Income Security (Fed employee retirement & disability, unemployment comp, food & housing assistance) $720 billion (20%).
> National Security (military) $650 billion (18%).
> Interest on national debt $320 billion (6%)
> Transportation & Education $210 billion (4%)
Click to expand...


Weird, you use "Major Entitlements" and mix the top 25% paying 70% of INCOME taxes which not a penny pays for that? Lying stupid moron. Hint the "Entitlements " are OWED $3+ trillion that has been borrowed (mainly thanks to Ronnie increasing SS taxes 60% to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, 

Think the MIC is protecting the bottom 50% or top 10%  Bubba? lol


Interest? Yep, most do to GOPers gutting revenues AS they ramped up spending since Reaganomics, which benefited the top 10% ONLY the past 35 years, but to blame it on the poor? lol


Income security? SELF funded dummy


----------



## bedowin62

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IRAQ WAR
> 
> hundreds of dems cast literally thousands of votes to continue funding it for a decade
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have boots on the ground it is hard to pull their funding. Republicans thrive on that
Click to expand...

 

it's especially hard for  you to end when you're voting FOR something idiot


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
> 
> The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what do they have to pay?
> 
> Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House?  Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment?  Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation.  Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REAGANOMICS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo Dumb2Three; your graph shows most of the gain by those you're jealous of ocuring during the CLINTON years. Reagan wasn't president during the 90's stupid.
Click to expand...



Your inability to read a graph is noted Bubba, as well as your inability to accept Reaganomics started US on this path!


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that.  Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system.  So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals.  So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............
> 
> Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people.  As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
> 
> I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one.  Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law.  We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
> We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have an income tax, we will still have the IRS and all the accountants, tax attorneys and IRS bean counters will keep their jobs.  The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the income tax and switch to a consumption tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Yeah, great idea, punish the poor more then anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FAIR tax exempts the poor.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Yeah, AND the FAIR tax is unrealistic like most things on the right. Perhaps if they learned REAL math versus conservative "math"?


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IRAQ WAR
> 
> hundreds of dems cast literally thousands of votes to continue funding it for a decade
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have boots on the ground it is hard to pull their funding. Republicans thrive on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it's especially hard for  you to end when you're voting FOR something idiot
Click to expand...

I know

Especially with republicans playing the you don't support our troops card


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Weird, I showed taxing the "job creators" WOULD wipe out the deficit completely, blowing the original posters posit out of the water. Thanks for TRYING to change the subject though Bubba


----------



## bedowin62

a left-wing idiot trying to "note" somebody elses inability to be honest is hilarious!!

from january of 2007 until january of this year Dems were a majority of the US government, having all 3 parts of the lawmaking process, or 2 of the three parts.

before that dems voted for nearly every single one of the policies they are pretending they had nothing to do with, pretending they tried to oppose


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
> 
> Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
> 
> The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
> 
> 
> you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck?  so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich?   Please...explain how that works.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts don't cost money.  Tax cuts reduce the money coming in.  If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol
> 
> Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!
> 
> Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Tax revenues increased under both.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



lol, NOT as much as they would've without tax cuts dummy, YES TAX CUTS OVER THE PAST 60+ YEARS HAS CUT REVENUES. Period


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

*Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
> BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
> 
> Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
> BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
> Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did I make some claim I haven't backed up? Didn't think so Bubba
> 
> 
> PLEASE though, give me just 3 POLICIES conservatives have been on the correct side of history the past 40 years? 60 years? 100? How about going back to the US Founding? Just 3 please, oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I CAN DO THAT LEFTARD; the easy answer is ALL OF THEM!1
> after all idiot, the policies you say the Right has been wrong on have and were all voted for and even EXTENDED AND CONTINUED BY DEMOCRATS.
> 
> want the list stupid?
Click to expand...



ONCE MORE. Just THREE policies CONSERVATIVES have been on the correct side of history on in the US! EVER!


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> an easier question for this loser lefty would be what republican policy or law DIDNT Democrats vote in huge numbers to continue, fund, extend even...etc.
> its' a much shorter list
> 
> idiots and hypocrites




Oh the low informed wants to conflate party with ideology. Shocking


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> obama EXTENDED the Bush tax cuts, ALL OF THEM EVEN FOR THE HIGHEST BRACKETS, and extended them AFTER they were to "sunset"; and OBAMA did this WHEN HE STILL HAD DEM-MAJORITIES IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS




Dec 6, 2010 - Allies say president '_blackmailed_' into extending _tax cut_ for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/06/barack-obama-bush-tax-cuts


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> No Child????????????????????
> 
> bi-partisan vote
> 
> home loans to people that were risky??   DEMS UP TO THEIR NECKS IN THAT




TRY to stop and THINK

If Gov't pushed people into loans, Banks WOULDN'T had lost money since they would've been backed by Gov't guarantees. Hint Banksters gave back tens of billion in FINES for the loan crap they sold US... THINK


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep the top 25% pay 85% of the INCOME tax load (which is less than 50% of ALL federal revenues) yet they "earn" 70% of ALL income. HMM
> 
> 
> And the bottom 50% "free riders" make about 11% of ALL US income, a reduction of the pie of nearly $5,000 PER family since Reaganomics. Go figure they are not paying that piece of the pie less than 50% of fed revenues, INCOME taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you say "since Reaganomics" without a shred of irony left-wing nutjob. you DO realize Mr Know-it-all that so many Democrats in congress voted for Reagan's policies the term Reagan Democrat was coined?
> 
> you DO realize Reagan had a Dem-majority House all 8 years?
> 
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
Click to expand...



And a GOP Senate for 6. AND? Reaganomics IS a failure, whoever supported it dummy! 

Reagan Dem was the VOTERS who did that, NOT lawmakers idiot boy!


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I showed taxing the "job creators" WOULD wipe out the deficit completely, blowing the original posters posit out of the water. Thanks for TRYING to change the subject though Bubba
Click to expand...

 

good one leftard; to bad you couldnt get your Jackass Party to even bring your idea up huh?


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> a left-wing idiot trying to "note" somebody elses inability to be honest is hilarious!!
> 
> from january of 2007 until january of this year Dems were a majority of the US government, having all 3 parts of the lawmaking process, or 2 of the three parts.
> 
> before that dems voted for nearly every single one of the policies they are pretending they had nothing to do with, pretending they tried to oppose



Yes, your ability to note party versus ideology is noted Bubba. But lets totally forget the hole the GOP/Dubya put US ion after 6 years of their "free market" works policies? You know the  worst recession since Harding/Coolidge's depression?


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep the top 25% pay 85% of the INCOME tax load (which is less than 50% of ALL federal revenues) yet they "earn" 70% of ALL income. HMM
> 
> 
> And the bottom 50% "free riders" make about 11% of ALL US income, a reduction of the pie of nearly $5,000 PER family since Reaganomics. Go figure they are not paying that piece of the pie less than 50% of fed revenues, INCOME taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you say "since Reaganomics" without a shred of irony left-wing nutjob. you DO realize Mr Know-it-all that so many Democrats in congress voted for Reagan's policies the term Reagan Democrat was coined?
> 
> you DO realize Reagan had a Dem-majority House all 8 years?
> 
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a GOP Senate for 6. AND? Reaganomics IS a failure, whoever supported it dummy!
> 
> Reagan Dem was the VOTERS who did that, NOT lawmakers idiot boy!
Click to expand...

 

no sorry leftard; a reagan democrat was a dem in congress OR a democrat voter that supported reagans' policies

try again ok?


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I showed taxing the "job creators" WOULD wipe out the deficit completely, blowing the original posters posit out of the water. Thanks for TRYING to change the subject though Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good one leftard; to bad you couldnt get your Jackass Party to even bring your idea up huh?
Click to expand...


Unlike the GOP, the Dems don't generally play to the base by bringing up bills without a chance of passing. But thanks for agreeing, liberal math actually works versus conservatives who want to use ideology with their "math"....


----------



## bedowin62

if Dems in congress werent Reagan Democrats then Reagan wouldnt have been able to get jackshit done moron.

arent you the same idiots that whine a minority of republicans in BOTH chambers was able to "obstruct" obama


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep the top 25% pay 85% of the INCOME tax load (which is less than 50% of ALL federal revenues) yet they "earn" 70% of ALL income. HMM
> 
> 
> And the bottom 50% "free riders" make about 11% of ALL US income, a reduction of the pie of nearly $5,000 PER family since Reaganomics. Go figure they are not paying that piece of the pie less than 50% of fed revenues, INCOME taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you say "since Reaganomics" without a shred of irony left-wing nutjob. you DO realize Mr Know-it-all that so many Democrats in congress voted for Reagan's policies the term Reagan Democrat was coined?
> 
> you DO realize Reagan had a Dem-majority House all 8 years?
> 
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a GOP Senate for 6. AND? Reaganomics IS a failure, whoever supported it dummy!
> 
> Reagan Dem was the VOTERS who did that, NOT lawmakers idiot boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no sorry leftard; a reagan democrat was a dem in congress OR a democrat voter that supported reagans' policies
> 
> try again ok?
Click to expand...


A *Reagan Democrat* is a traditionally *Democratic* voter in the United States, especially a white working-class Northerner, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald *Reagan* in either or both the 1980 and 1984 elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat


----------



## bedowin62

you keep babbling and making a fool of yourself

under Progressives the richest got richer, the poorest gt poorer; both at a FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA then was the case under Republicans

keep trying


----------



## bedowin62

13 million MORE on food stamps under obama in his SEVENTH YEAR


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> if Dems in congress werent Reagan Democrats then Reagan wouldnt have been able to get jackshit done moron.
> 
> arent you the same idiots that whine a minority of republicans in BOTH chambers was able to "obstruct" obama




To stupid or young to understand up until about 1993, Congress actually worked among parties for the best interest of America? The GOP went SOOOOO far right with Newts BS Bubs, THAT'S when Gov't started to fail as a working part of Gov't!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I showed taxing the "job creators" WOULD wipe out the deficit completely, blowing the original posters posit out of the water. Thanks for TRYING to change the subject though Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good one leftard; to bad you couldnt get your Jackass Party to even bring your idea up huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike the GOP, the Dems don't generally play to the base by bringing up bills without a chance of passing. But thanks for agreeing, liberal math actually works versus conservatives who want to use ideology with their "math"....
Click to expand...



Hmmm. yeah, actually the do that all the time.  They definitely pass bills that they know a Republican president will veto.  That's been their standard operating procedure for decades.


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> you keep babbling and making a fool of yourself
> 
> under Progressives the richest got richer, the poorest gt poorer; both at a FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA then was the case under Republicans
> 
> keep trying




Got it. YOU WILL NOT OR CAN NOT give me 3 policies conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history. Thanks anyways Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> 13 million MORE on food stamps under obama in his SEVENTH YEAR




GOPers/Conservatives dig DEEP holes Bubba


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION)  in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
> 
> Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
> 
> BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
> 
> 
> 
> Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea.  No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I showed taxing the "job creators" WOULD wipe out the deficit completely, blowing the original posters posit out of the water. Thanks for TRYING to change the subject though Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good one leftard; to bad you couldnt get your Jackass Party to even bring your idea up huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike the GOP, the Dems don't generally play to the base by bringing up bills without a chance of passing. But thanks for agreeing, liberal math actually works versus conservatives who want to use ideology with their "math"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. yeah, actually the do that all the time.  They definitely pass bills that they know a Republican president will veto.  That's been their standard operating procedure for decades.
Click to expand...



Oh you mean as CONGRESS they pass bills that the Prez threatens a veto on? But unlike the GOP, they don't bring up to many "base bills" that have zero chance of passing a House of Congress, to even get to the Prez? 

Think "person hood" bills (what about 30 last year???) lol


----------



## ScienceRocks

If they use our infrastructure more, police more or economy more...Well, they should pay a higher percentage in taxes. It is fair.


----------



## bedowin62

LOOK AT THIS LOON CRYING  that people he's lecturing dont know anything, and the people they elected; got and continue to get the best of the brightest Progressive minds

too stupid to see what it looks like


----------



## Papageorgio

frigidweirdo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
> 
> Are they paying their way? Probably not.
> 
> Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get your information? Is that of the top of your head or has it been established somewhere? If so can you provide the link? Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in response to the previous post. It's not possible to give a statistic for what I said, simply because it'd be impossible to take every small thing and work out how much every person uses govt funding.
> 
> You'd need to figure out how much of a percentage these people use the roads. I mean, take statistics for private use and take it for corporate use. These stats just don't exist.
Click to expand...


So it's is BS and you made it up. Thanks.


----------



## bedowin62

SIGH

 once again the bills Dem Senate Leader refused to bring to the floor for debate, "personhood bills" or not weren denied a voted not because they had no chance of passing, many had already passed the House with bi-partisan votes; they didnt get a voted because the WOULD HAVE PASSED

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62

t took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism. The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining. Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles


----------



## bedowin62

and Reid is STILL OBSTRUCTING, even as Minority Leader:


*Harry Reid to block spending bills - Rachael Bade and John ...*
www.politico.com/.../*senate*-democrats-to-block-spending-*bills*-1...

Cached
Politico
Loading...
Jun 4, 2015 - *Senate* Minority Leader *Harry Reid* is vowing to use *Senate* rules to block the entire ... *300* Hillary Clinton emails screened for classified info ... “We will not *vote* to proceed to the Defense appropriations *bill* or any ... Democrats are now threatening to *deny* funding for the brave men and women who protect ...


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 million MORE on food stamps under obama in his SEVENTH YEAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOPers/Conservatives dig DEEP holes Bubba
Click to expand...

 

more means more than the last guy dullard

keep trying


----------



## bedowin62

13 millon more on food stamps in obama's seventh year even as you left-wing idiots insist things are so much better now. but when you are faced with inconveniant facts you idiots start talkinig out of both sides of your mouths.

there are MORE on food stamps in obamas' seventh year then there were under Bush. in fact they reached a record high under obama


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep babbling and making a fool of yourself
> 
> under Progressives the richest got richer, the poorest gt poorer; both at a FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA then was the case under Republicans
> 
> keep trying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. YOU WILL NOT OR CAN NOT give me 3 policies conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history. Thanks anyways Bubs
Click to expand...

 

i already did dummy; all the ones democrats kept funding and continuing

BUT OK IDIOT; here goes................................

January 31, 1865; Republican-controlled Congress passes the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery


----------



## bedowin62

january 13, 1866

with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat oppposition Congress passes the 14th Amendment


----------



## bedowin62

*May 21*
*1919*
Republican-controlled 66th Congress passes the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.


----------



## bedowin62

Republican-controlled 68th Congress and President Calvin Coolidge grant citizenship to Native Americans.


----------



## bedowin62

i'm gonna go ahead and guess you're going to go from "in HISTORY"  to "well what have they done lately"

lol


----------



## bedowin62

Brown v Board of Education strikes down racial segregation in public schools; majority decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, former governor (R-CA) and vice presidential nominee.


----------



## bedowin62

because you asked...............................



*1957*
President Dwight Eisenhower signs the 1957 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## bedowin62

*1964*
Senate passes the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), defeats Democrat filibuster.


----------



## bedowin62

*1987*
President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> t took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism. The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining. Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles


If republicans had sixty votes then they could pass amendments. Same as the dems


----------



## ScienceRocks

Some people really think that the rich should pay less and that they're better then everyone else. Get their dick out of your mouth and think.


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.




Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> Some people really think that the rich should pay less and that they're better then everyone else. Get their dick out of your mouth and think.


 

i see george soros sodomized you anally

to the point you cant think for yourself


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> *1964*
> Senate passes the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), defeats Democrat filibuster.


You have yet to post anything a conservative has done


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
Click to expand...

 

planes leave hourly leftard


----------



## bedowin62

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1964*
> Senate passes the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), defeats Democrat filibuster.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post anything a conservative has done
Click to expand...

 

yawn

you're simply a hilarious clown


----------



## rightwinger

What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?


----------



## bedowin62

bedowin62 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
Click to expand...

  i didnt mention taxes at all retard. you're on auto-idiot with your own narrative


----------



## bedowin62

rightwinger said:


> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?


 

reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;

remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"


----------



## bedowin62

geesh idiot; is that all you got?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Your inability to read a graph is noted Bubba, as well as your inability to accept Reaganomics started US on this path!



As is your inability to tell the truth.

You are a mindless, partisan sycophant. Virtually nothing you post has merit. If I want to know your "thoughts," I can log on to DailyKOS or the other Soros Hate sites and read them directly.


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> t took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism. The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining. Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
> Read more at: Harry Reid’s Obstructionism | National Review Online





""It is true that some bills, including some of substance, are being blocked by Reid from action because he wants to avoid Republican amendments of the ‘gotcha’ variety that could work against some of his endangered incumbents up this fall," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the *American Enterprise Institute (NOT EXACTLY A PROGRESSIVE OR DEM GROUP DUMMY) * "You can make a case that the role of the majority is to suck it up and do votes, even if some are uncomfortable.* But on the balance sheet, the bigger reality is that very few of the bills passed by the House were aimed at compromise or agreement with the Senate."*

*Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate'*


*Republican Jobs Bills Won't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists

GOP Jobs Package Doesn't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists
*


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DCJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.............
> 
> To whom more is given, more is required............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
> So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
> 96%?
> 106%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absurd on its face but you now have the opportunity to look at facts (not that they will change your thinking). None of the following establishes the top 25% of American earners as greater users of gov't services than the gen pop. In fact, it clearly establishes the bottom 49% - those who contribute NOTHING - as the biggest beneficiaries by far:
> 
> Federal budget 2014 $3.6 trillion
> 
> Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare) $1.8 trillion (49%)
> Income Security (Fed employee retirement & disability, unemployment comp, food & housing assistance) $720 billion (20%).
> National Security (military) $650 billion (18%).
> Interest on national debt $320 billion (6%)
> Transportation & Education $210 billion (4%)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, what does a rich person get out of the federal govt?
> 
> Healthcare? Well they get employees with decent health. Does this improve performance at work, reduce sick days which affects performance and so on? Sure it does. That's 24%
> 
> Defense? Well, defense provides how many jobs? Provides innovations in technology that allow companies to reduce costs. How much money does the warring around the world make US companies? Halliburton did amazingly well out of the 2003 war. How many US oil companies are doing well in Iraq?
> 
> That's be Exxon and Occidental. Exxon just happens to make the most revenue at $967,432,500 a year. A British company is second, BP, Occidental is still making $205,334,400 a year. How much do they pay in taxes? Enough to cover for the Iraqi War and post occupation? I doubt it. Who pays for this? Yeah, sure, many people who don't get much out of it at all, rather than the companies and the shareholders of these companies.
> 
> BP, British, biggest shareholder is BlackRock, based in NY City. Laurence Fink, Americans, is the Chairman.
> The Co-Presidents, one is American, the other was Filipino but seems to be American, lives in Scarsdale.
> 
> Third largest is Barclay's Global Investors. Owned by BlackRock.
> 
> Also in the top 10 is Capital Research and Management Co. An LA based US company.
> 
> You see that a lot of things tie in with other things and the US is spending a LOT of money helping a lot of people get rich. And then they turn around and say "I shouldn't have to give the government anything, this is MY money".
> 
> Rubbish.
Click to expand...


Wow. You just made all that up in support of your fabricated (and completely ludicrous) claim that it is a "fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." You even admit in a subsequent that post you have nothing which supports that claim but you manage to double down on your silliness anyway by claiming the health care expenditures - made to protect the health of mostly poor people - is actually done to benefit the wealthy. It just doesn't get any loonier than that. So you are suggesting we cut the health care from the budget rather than use our federal treasure to benefit those evil rich folk? Dude, you are one callous individual.
 
BTW, I understand your eagerness to disengage from conversing with those who find your baseless claims and twisted logic to be a bit ... off. Only a fellow socialist loon like D2Three can appreciate your 2+2=5 kind of "logic."


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place.
> 
> So, again, BYE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is you are so often insulted because you make such ridiculous (and, of course, unfounded) claims such as "But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." Just typical socialist silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so it's okay to insult someone if YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM?
> 
> Come off it, you're scrambling around in the dirt looking for an excuse as to why you needed an insult INSTEAD of actually providing opinion. You insulted me, and the debate is over. Don't try and make pathetic excuses as to why you need to insult people.
Click to expand...


I've done way more than just provide you with my opinions. I've backed them up with hard facts ... facts that you reject because they conflict with your consistently baseless conclusions.


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> 13 millon more on food stamps in obama's seventh year even as you left-wing idiots insist things are so much better now. but when you are faced with inconveniant facts you idiots start talkinig out of both sides of your mouths.
> 
> there are MORE on food stamps in obamas' seventh year then there were under Bush. in fact they reached a record high under obama



YOU keep babbling like you think you make sense Bubba? What's up with that? 

Hint Obama has only been in office 6 years AND the economy he INHERITED lost 4+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 2009, the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, AND the GOP/conservatives have done EVERYTHING to STILL make a Obama a 1 termer. Weird you don't understand the depth  of the hole GOP/Dubya dug US into doesn't matter?

*Yep, those "job creators" aren't doing a very good job with the lowest sustained tax burden on them in 80 years AND record Corp profits *AT the same time their labor costs are record lows? I know the GOP/conservative answer is to give MORE tax cuts and deregulate more right? lol


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep babbling and making a fool of yourself
> 
> under Progressives the richest got richer, the poorest gt poorer; both at a FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA then was the case under Republicans
> 
> keep trying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. YOU WILL NOT OR CAN NOT give me 3 policies conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history. Thanks anyways Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i already did dummy; all the ones democrats kept funding and continuing
> 
> BUT OK IDIOT; here goes................................
> 
> January 31, 1865; Republican-controlled Congress passes the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery
Click to expand...




Got it Bubba, you STILL want to conflate ideology with party affiliation. I'm shocked

HINT, YES THOSE PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL GOPers DID THAT, THE CONSERVATIVES? THEY WERE AGAINST IT!


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> january 13, 1866
> 
> with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat oppposition Congress passes the 14th Amendment




LOL, To funny Bubba, you want to hide behind party labels? Hint the PROGRESSIVES of the period (yep, CONservatives were the Democratic party then!) , DID do those things. Weird conservatives are STILL fighting those things (look to the GOPerss who want to get rid of birthright citizenship,. lol)


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
Click to expand...


The list is long on this board among you moronic simple minded conservatives, but I think you take the cake as a liar Bubba. Congrats


Hint in the House ANYTHING passes by simple majority the MAJORITY wants passed (look to the 30+ "person hood" bills, lol). It was ONLY in the Senate that things can get blocked UNLESS you have a super majority of 60, AND under Ronnie,. the GOP AND Dems loved America more than their ideology, unlike today's conservatives/GOPers!


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
Click to expand...



Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!


----------



## ScienceRocks

rightwinger said:


> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?




The middle class has become smaller and the super rich insanely rich! China has taken most of our industry!!!

What a national disgrace Reagan's tax cuts turned out to be.


----------



## dblack

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
Click to expand...


Somalia!!!!

For...
The ...
....
.....
...... 

WIIIIIIIN!!!!!


----------



## OnePercenter

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



I believe that the rich and wealthy should pay the same percentage of their income in federal tax as the middle class and poor. Until the middle class put a Democrat in the White House, and vote Democrat majority in Congress that will never happen.


----------



## OnePercenter

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



A flat tax would screw the middle class and poor.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.



Breaking News! 1% of one million is more than 1% of 50K.

Fact: The top 10% pay less percentage of total income in federal tax than the middle class.


----------



## OnePercenter

CrusaderFrank said:


> We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too



If you teach your kids 'redistribution,' you teach your kids deception. Everyone pays taxes to pay for taxpayer supported services. Except for Apple in importing their iPhones.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.



A consumption tax screws the poor and middle class.

Owning property you don't live is a business, thus tax benefits.


----------



## OnePercenter

bear513 said:


> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax



If you were 'SMART' you would have moved to a state without income tax.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.



Incorporate your business, which you should have already done.


----------



## ScienceRocks

dblack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
Click to expand...


No government
No regulations
No taxes
No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..

Sounds like the conservative land to me!


----------



## dblack

Matthew said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
Click to expand...


Alrighty then!


----------



## Dad2three

Matthew said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1987*
> President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
Click to expand...


I think Honduras, with their "low taxes", small Gov't and "free economy" is a better example, IMO

*The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*

Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.

Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.


...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”


...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."


The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you teach your kids 'redistribution,' you teach your kids deception. Everyone pays taxes to pay for taxpayer supported services. Except for Apple in importing their iPhones.
Click to expand...


I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and giving it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
Classic "wealth" redistribution.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you teach your kids 'redistribution,' you teach your kids deception. Everyone pays taxes to pay for taxpayer supported services. Except for Apple in importing their iPhones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and gives it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
> Classic "wealth" redistribution.
Click to expand...


You mean for CHILDREN?


_Earned Income Tax Credit_ (_EITC_), which* reduces poverty while encouraging and rewarding work*


President Reagan, who proposed and then signed a major expansion of it in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. While Reagan is often quoted as calling the EITC *“the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”

Reagan’s Actions Made Him a True EITC Champion | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
*


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes is something our founders in 1886-1887 fought to grant the federal government. For you to = taxes and first world institutions to communism proves that you're a fucking moron!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Honduras, with their "low taxes", small Gov't and "free economy" is a better example, IMO
> 
> *The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*
> 
> Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.
> 
> Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.
> 
> 
> ...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”
> 
> 
> ...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise
Click to expand...


Honduras has always had a high crime rate.  That has nothing to do with ZEDE, which hasn't gotten off the ground, the last I heard.  Your attempt to imply some kind of connection is hilarious, to say the least.

Most the countries in the world with high crime rates, like South Africa, Jamaica and Brazil, and decidedly left leaning governments - exactly the kind you support.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you teach your kids 'redistribution,' you teach your kids deception. Everyone pays taxes to pay for taxpayer supported services. Except for Apple in importing their iPhones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and gives it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
> Classic "wealth" redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean for CHILDREN?
> 
> 
> _Earned Income Tax Credit_ (_EITC_), which* reduces poverty while encouraging and rewarding work*
> 
> 
> President Reagan, who proposed and then signed a major expansion of it in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. While Reagan is often quoted as calling the EITC *“the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”
> 
> Reagan’s Actions Made Him a True EITC Champion | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities*
Click to expand...


Did you find the mere mention of that gov't wealth redistribution program to be a threat to your "Worker's Paradise?" I did not judge it's virtues but rather pointed out to the other loony leftist idiot that we do indeed enforce wealth redistribution in America.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 millon more on food stamps in obama's seventh year even as you left-wing idiots insist things are so much better now. but when you are faced with inconveniant facts you idiots start talkinig out of both sides of your mouths.
> 
> there are MORE on food stamps in obamas' seventh year then there were under Bush. in fact they reached a record high under obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU keep babbling like you think you make sense Bubba? What's up with that?
> 
> Hint Obama has only been in office 6 years AND the economy he INHERITED lost 4+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 2009, the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, AND the GOP/conservatives have done EVERYTHING to STILL make a Obama a 1 termer. Weird you don't understand the depth  of the hole GOP/Dubya dug US into doesn't matter?
> 
> *Yep, those "job creators" aren't doing a very good job with the lowest sustained tax burden on them in 80 years AND record Corp profits *AT the same time their labor costs are record lows? I know the GOP/conservative answer is to give MORE tax cuts and deregulate more right? lol
Click to expand...



Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. The real problem is you can lead a man to water but you can't make him drink.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and giving it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
> Classic "wealth" redistribution.



If you don't like poor people, than lets eliminate them;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Dad2three said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a tax attorney?
> 
> I'm going to speed this up and guess that you are not.
> 
> Have you ever sued the IRS?
> 
> If you can read code, why not read the tax code, it's all in there.
> 
> I will discuss this no more, with someone who isn't qualified.
> 
> The federal government is just going to declare taxes voluntary, that is funny stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, History says YOU are a fukkn loon Bubba. Don't get butt hurt because of the truth
Click to expand...


How was my post butt hurt? You are the one who is actually acting that way.

I asked you simple questions, and this is all you come back with? Don't waste my time Tinkerbell, this subject is way over your head.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and giving it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
> Classic "wealth" redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like poor people, than lets eliminate them; ...
Click to expand...


So who said anything about not liking poor people? I simply pointed out the baselessness of your "wealth redistribution" comment. Evidently you erect these silly Straw Men so you can argue with yourself. Have fun!


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
Click to expand...

We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation


----------



## gipper

OnePercenter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax would screw the middle class and poor.
Click to expand...

It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> So who said anything about not liking poor people? I simply pointed out the baselessness of your "wealth redistribution" comment. Evidently you erect these silly Straw Men so you can argue with yourself. Have fun!



You mentioned 'wealth redistribution' and only named poor people as the problem. You didn't mention wealth distribution related to corporate subsidies for the wealthy and corporations. Hypocrite.

I have an answer to solve both problems:


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly leftard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Honduras, with their "low taxes", small Gov't and "free economy" is a better example, IMO
> 
> *The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*
> 
> Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.
> 
> Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.
> 
> 
> ...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”
> 
> 
> ...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honduras has always had a high crime rate.  That has nothing to do with ZEDE, which hasn't gotten off the ground, the last I heard.  Your attempt to imply some kind of connection is hilarious, to say the least.
> 
> Most the countries in the world with high crime rates, like South Africa, Jamaica and Brazil, and decidedly left leaning governments - exactly the kind you support.
Click to expand...


Says the Klown who should've outgrown the Ayn Rand fetish by about 25...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should teach all our kids that redistribution has a 100% fail rate. Think of all the "Rich must pay!" posts that would never be made, it would be great for the environment too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you teach your kids 'redistribution,' you teach your kids deception. Everyone pays taxes to pay for taxpayer supported services. Except for Apple in importing their iPhones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you've never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit which essentially means poorer workers can get back more than they pay in federal personal income taxes ... taking from those the gov't determines can afford it (no matter how much o-time they worked to earn it) and gives it to those of the gov'ts choosing.
> Classic "wealth" redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean for CHILDREN?
> 
> 
> _Earned Income Tax Credit_ (_EITC_), which* reduces poverty while encouraging and rewarding work*
> 
> 
> President Reagan, who proposed and then signed a major expansion of it in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. While Reagan is often quoted as calling the EITC *“the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”
> 
> Reagan’s Actions Made Him a True EITC Champion | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you find the mere mention of that gov't wealth redistribution program to be a threat to your "Worker's Paradise?" I did not judge it's virtues but rather pointed out to the other loony leftist idiot that we do indeed enforce wealth redistribution in America.
Click to expand...


EVER\Y tax is some type of redistribution dummy


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 millon more on food stamps in obama's seventh year even as you left-wing idiots insist things are so much better now. but when you are faced with inconveniant facts you idiots start talkinig out of both sides of your mouths.
> 
> there are MORE on food stamps in obamas' seventh year then there were under Bush. in fact they reached a record high under obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU keep babbling like you think you make sense Bubba? What's up with that?
> 
> Hint Obama has only been in office 6 years AND the economy he INHERITED lost 4+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 2009, the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, AND the GOP/conservatives have done EVERYTHING to STILL make a Obama a 1 termer. Weird you don't understand the depth  of the hole GOP/Dubya dug US into doesn't matter?
> 
> *Yep, those "job creators" aren't doing a very good job with the lowest sustained tax burden on them in 80 years AND record Corp profits *AT the same time their labor costs are record lows? I know the GOP/conservative answer is to give MORE tax cuts and deregulate more right? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. The real problem is you can lead a man to water but you can't make him drink.
Click to expand...



Not as long as you Klowns keep working for the plutocrat class to keep their  heels on the bottom 90%'s neck..


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Honduras, with their "low taxes", small Gov't and "free economy" is a better example, IMO
> 
> *The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*
> 
> Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.
> 
> Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.
> 
> 
> ...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”
> 
> 
> ...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honduras has always had a high crime rate.  That has nothing to do with ZEDE, which hasn't gotten off the ground, the last I heard.  Your attempt to imply some kind of connection is hilarious, to say the least.
> 
> Most the countries in the world with high crime rates, like South Africa, Jamaica and Brazil, and decidedly left leaning governments - exactly the kind you support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who should've outgrown the Ayn Rand fetish by about 25...
Click to expand...


That's your excuse for trying to blame Honduran crime on a libertarian organization that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it?

Why don't you just admit what we all know:  you're a sleazy lying hosebag.


----------



## Dad2three

EatMorChikin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a tax attorney?
> 
> I'm going to speed this up and guess that you are not.
> 
> Have you ever sued the IRS?
> 
> If you can read code, why not read the tax code, it's all in there.
> 
> I will discuss this no more, with someone who isn't qualified.
> 
> The federal government is just going to declare taxes voluntary, that is funny stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, History says YOU are a fukkn loon Bubba. Don't get butt hurt because of the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was my post butt hurt? You are the one who is actually acting that way.
> 
> I asked you simple questions, and this is all you come back with? Don't waste my time Tinkerbell, this subject is way over your head.
Click to expand...




*Is the Income Tax Truly Voluntary?*



*Nonetheless, we do not subscribe to the contorted theories of tax resistance or "un-tax" service organizations. Since the 1970s these firms have come and gone by the dozens, peddling long-discredited schemes that eventually lead to failure. These arguments include, but are not limited to, "the income tax is voluntary," "ordinary wages are not 'income' for tax purposes," "only certain non-residents are subject to income tax," "the IRS is a private corporation chartered in Delaware," and "the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified."

Only the last argument in this list contains a kernel of truth, but even this is more of a historical curiosity than a basis for some kind of legal remedy. I would invite you to review comprehensive treatment of these topics at a host of websites, including:

www.taxprophet.com

www.quatloos.com

evans- legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

IRS.gov

These sites have consistently debunked the "un-tax" myth with court decisions and other legal citations.

One particular aspect of deceptive marketing often employed by “un-tax” groups is that the income tax is "voluntary." Statements by officials that the tax system depends upon voluntary compliance do NOT mean that citizens may choose to ignore the law*


National Taxpayers Union - Is the Income Tax Truly Voluntary?


----------



## OnePercenter

gipper said:


> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.



The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes. 

If you like Trumps tax plan, you need to keep in mind it doesn't effect/affect 'The Donald.' or me, or Bill Gates, because were all corporations.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia!!!!
> 
> For...
> The ...
> ....
> .....
> ......
> 
> WIIIIIIIN!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No government
> No regulations
> No taxes
> No investment into infrastructure, science, education or nothing at all..
> 
> Sounds like the conservative land to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Honduras, with their "low taxes", small Gov't and "free economy" is a better example, IMO
> 
> *The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*
> 
> Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.
> 
> Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.
> 
> 
> ...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”
> 
> 
> ...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honduras has always had a high crime rate.  That has nothing to do with ZEDE, which hasn't gotten off the ground, the last I heard.  Your attempt to imply some kind of connection is hilarious, to say the least.
> 
> Most the countries in the world with high crime rates, like South Africa, Jamaica and Brazil, and decidedly left leaning governments - exactly the kind you support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who should've outgrown the Ayn Rand fetish by about 25...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your excuse for trying to blame Honduran crime on a libertarian organization that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it?
> 
> Why don't you just admit what we all know:  you're a sleazy lying hosebag.
Click to expand...



*The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise*

Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, *Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs.*

Despite the country's crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world's second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world's five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions.


...the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.”


...As Mackey reported, "The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners," including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan's son Michael, as well as "a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute."


The Nightmare Libertarian Project to Turn This Central American Country Into Ayn Rand's Paradise

YES, Focus on that part on crime *shaking head*


----------



## ScienceRocks

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
Click to expand...


Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> Wow. You just made all that up in support of your fabricated (and completely ludicrous) claim that it is a "fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." You even admit in a subsequent that post you have nothing which supports that claim but you manage to double down on your silliness anyway by claiming the health care expenditures - made to protect the health of mostly poor people - is actually done to benefit the wealthy. It just doesn't get any loonier than that. So you are suggesting we cut the health care from the budget rather than use our federal treasure to benefit those evil rich folk? Dude, you are one callous individual.
> 
> BTW, I understand your eagerness to disengage from conversing with those who find your baseless claims and twisted logic to be a bit ... off. Only a fellow socialist loon like D2Three can appreciate your 2+2=5 kind of "logic."



There's a "style" of debating which isn't interested in the reality of a situation. You used stats badly to try and prove a point. Just because you think you're using logic and you're backing it up with some kind of stat (which you didn't show where you got this from).
I on the other hand wanted to make a point. So I made it. I didn't need to use statistics to make my point. I merely parodied what you had said. 

But now you're just on the attack. Trying to somehow "win" a debate by going off on one. 

To be honest I'm not interested because I've done this thousands and times and EVERY SINGLE time it ends up in he same way. 

You can do the whole baiting thing, seen that a thousand times too, but I'm not taking it. So you go off and feel smug about yourself, I simply don't care. I'm not on here to play petty little games with people like you.


----------



## Dad2three




----------



## Dad2three

*Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *


...*.Early Americans were all too familiar with European Aristocracy and as they began to conceive this new nation they wanted a new idea based not on Aristocratic order but on shared political power.* For that to happen they believed there had to be relative equity in wealth among the citizens of America. There was a strong belief that inherited wealth would lead to a rising Aristocracy with wealthy families consolidating unfair political power.* Both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, that great Conservative champion, found it impossible to accept that great wealth should be passed on from parent to child. Because of this they stood firm on a redistribution of wealth in the form of an inheritance tax. *
_

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural._ Thomas Jefferson

_There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death._ Adam Smith


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
Click to expand...


Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
Click to expand...


Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.



No. I stated that the middle class and poor pay less than 10% of their total income in federal tax. I also stated that the rich and wealthy pay less than that.


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You just made all that up in support of your fabricated (and completely ludicrous) claim that it is a "fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." You even admit in a subsequent post that you have nothing which supports that claim but you manage to double down on your silliness anyway by claiming the health care expenditures - made to protect the health of mostly poor people - is actually done to benefit the wealthy. It just doesn't get any loonier than that. So you are suggesting we cut the health care from the budget rather than use our federal treasure to benefit those evil rich folk? Dude, you are one callous individual.
> 
> BTW, I understand your eagerness to disengage from conversing with those who find your baseless claims and twisted logic to be a bit ... off. Only a fellow socialist loon like D2Three can appreciate your 2+2=5 kind of "logic."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a "style" of debating which isn't interested in the reality of a situation...
Click to expand...


Which is _exactly_ the "style" you employ. To this point your "style" of debating is to post your baseless conclusions and then cover your ears and eyes when your silly socialist fantasy world is confronted with real facts. You call that debate?


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I stated that the middle class and poor pay less than 10% of their total income in federal tax. I also stated that the rich and wealthy pay less than that.
Click to expand...


Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.


----------



## bedowin62

i also found that item idiotic. leftard claims that the richest use 90% of government services? on what planet?


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.



The bottom 49% don't have enough income to pay more.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
Click to expand...


HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
 drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
Click to expand...




Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
Click to expand...

 

YAWN
 left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
 the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.

11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????

lol


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I stated that the middle class and poor pay less than 10% of their total income in federal tax. I also stated that the rich and wealthy pay less than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.
Click to expand...


*9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes*

*1. Poor Americans do pay taxes.*

9 Things The Rich Dont Want You To Know About Taxes





*Soaking the Poor, State by State*

That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the *poorest 20 percent pay twice the tax rate of the top 1 percent*. In the worst states, the poorest 20 percent pay five to six times the rate of the richest 1 percent. *Lucky duckies indeed.* There's not one single state with a tax system that's progressive



Soaking the Poor, State by State



*Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes*

_These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay_.  As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes.  *Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year*



*Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers.*

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
Click to expand...



Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
Click to expand...

 

YAWN
 still crying about the dead guy that would be over a hundred year old?

 the one that was a Democrat most of his life?

who's the moron?

lol


----------



## bedowin62

you get the feeling leftardz dont know what year it is, who is President, and for how long


geesh!


----------



## bedowin62

MOMMY MOMMY!!!

MEAN OL  Republicans made me fail; even the dead ones are still making me fail?

is it my failed Progressive ideology Mom???


----------



## bedowin62

MOMMY MOMMY!!! you told me i was smart; but nothing i've done for 35 YEARS has produced any kind of positive "change"!!! THAT'S WHY  i'm still crying about long-dead white guys who governed decades ago!!!!


----------



## bedowin62

MOMMY MOMMY I'M A PROGRESSIVE!!   How can i be IRRELEVANT??????


hold me!!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
> drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!
Click to expand...

Wrong.  That's bullshit. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
> drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That's bullshit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



INCOME SHARE BY GROUP:


Bottom 50% 2012 (latest year avail)  
11.1%


Bottom 50% 1980 (Pre Reaganomics)
17.68%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


GO AWAY NOW BUBS


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME, a
> drop from nearly 18% in 1980, pre Reaganomics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That's bullshit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I'll wait for your apology since I gave you the link to the "Anti" Tax Foundation proving my posit Bubs


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME...
Click to expand...


And as a reward for their lack of financial success they pay NO Federal Personal Income Tax. They enjoy the same (or better) benefits and protections - despite the baseless claims of those who believe America's wealthiest are recipients of "90%" of federal spending - than any other segment of our population.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 49% don't have enough income to pay more.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you determined that (you forgot to include a link) and it's not the point being discussed but merely a lame diversion by you. I only mention the lack of monetary contribution to the common good by the bottom 49% as a comparative. The point is every loony lefty (like you, for instance) whines about the unfairness of our tax structure, though you aren't whining about the 86% burden on our top 25% but rather the 0% paid by the bottom 49%.
If 86% doesn't satisfy you, what share of the load would?
96%?
106%
How much less than 0% should the bottom half pay?


----------



## rightwinger

Matthew said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
Click to expand...

Very true

Since Reagan, debt has moved to the middle class and we have accomplished nothing


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> MOMMY MOMMY!!!
> 
> MEAN OL  Republicans made me fail; even the dead ones are still making me fail?
> 
> is it my failed Progressive ideology Mom???


Mean old republicans really fucked up this country


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more for the terminally dense: the bottom 49% of American earners pay NOTHING while the top 25% carry 86% of the load. If you can't accept that as good enough you will have to move to a country where everyone is equally poor. We don't do that here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 49% don't have enough income to pay more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you determined that (you forgot to include a link) and it's not the point being discussed but merely a lame diversion by you. I only mention the lack of monetary contribution to the common good by the bottom 49% as a comparative. The point is every loony lefty (like you, for instance) whines about the unfairness of our tax structure, though you aren't whining about the 86% burden on our top 25% but rather the 0% paid by the bottom 49%.
> If 86% doesn't satisfy you, what share of the load would?
> 96%?
> 106%
> How much less than 0% should the bottom half pay?
Click to expand...



Household Income  Percentile
(2007 CBO data)


*Bottom  0–19% *Tax Rate incl. All Federal Taxes  * 4.% (effective tax rate)* 


*Share of Earnings 4%*



*Bottom 20–39% * Tax Rate incl. All Federal Taxes* 10.6% (effective tax rate)* 
*
Share of earnings   8.4%*


The Tax Foundation produced a similar breakdown for 1991 to 2004. Its computation of comprehensive household income consisted of both market-based income and the net value of government transfer payments, the latter are not part of the CBO's definition. In this report the top quintile earned 41.5% and paid 48.8% of total taxes. The fourth quintile earned 21.0% and paid 22.4%. The third quintile earned 15.4% and paid 14.8%. The second quintile earned 12.2% and paid 9.6%. The lowest quintile earned 9.8% and paid 4.3% of total taxes

Progressivity in United States income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS BUBBA:



*Soaking the Poor, State by State*

That includes overall tax rates, where data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that in the median state (Mississippi, as it turns out) the poorest 20 percent pay _twice_ the tax rate of the top 1 percent. *In the worst states, the poorest 20 percent pay five to six times the rate of the richest 1 percent*. Lucky duckies indeed.* There's not one single state with a tax system that's progressive*

Soaking the Poor, State by State


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HINT: THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE 11% OF ALL INCOME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a reward for their lack of financial success they pay NO Federal Personal Income Tax. They enjoy the same (or better) benefits and protections - despite the baseless claims of those who believe America's wealthiest are recipients of "90%" of federal spending - than any other segment of our population.
Click to expand...


Sure since federal INCOME taxes are less than half of ALL revenues and they pay other taxes, like the SS/Medicare taxes that GOP/Conservative policy stole the last 30 years to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
Click to expand...


So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?


----------



## Agit8r

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind... to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Matthew said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
Click to expand...



Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that? 

Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama. 

We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that? 

Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals? 

The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you? 

Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
Click to expand...





REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?

Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends *WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 2/3rds!!!!*


WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?



*Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What major accomplishment has this country had since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan couldnt do jackshit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to leftard;
> 
> remember you are the idiots saying the Repub MINORITY IN BOTH chambers "obstructed" obama from "day One"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
Click to expand...


WOW, you hit  quite a few talking points. Perhaps get off hate talk radio/Faux "News" and educate yourself SOME?


ONE policy the past 40 years conservatives have been on the correct side of us history? 100 years? 200 years?


*Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*


*Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work*\

*When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.*


*Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*






*Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies*








*Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies*







*Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*







*Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies*






*Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies*







*Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies*

Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. *Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period.







Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.


*
The Failure of Supply-Side Economics


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Click to expand...


FULL QUESTION: 

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books. 

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
Click to expand...


OIL AND GAS ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIES THAT "OFF SHORE" JOBS? LOL

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO AN INDUSTRY WITH RECORD PROFITS. You think they need it?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
Click to expand...




Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) *introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.*

*Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. * Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.

“It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”


Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OIL AND GAS ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIES THAT "OFF SHORE" JOBS? LOL
> 
> THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO AN INDUSTRY WITH RECORD PROFITS. You think they need it?
Click to expand...


You missed the point entirely. 

Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country.  We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.  

As this report points out, it has nothing to do with taxes with the exception that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It has to do with labor costs, education, and consumer demand. 

US companies don't offshore because it's a trend, they offshore because they need to supply American consumers with cheap products.  Those who didn't offshore invested in technology such as automation.  There are even McDonald's restaurants that are now experimenting with employee-less outlets.  Machines will now make your Big Mac combo. 

You can't blame this on Reagan, Republicans or any single entity.  This has been in the making for a long time now, and now that it's here, we are looking for excuses why it is.  

You want to take away tax breaks from oil companies, then don't complain when gasoline increases 20 cents per gallon more, because industry always finds a way to make up for their losses.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) *introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.*
> 
> *Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. * Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.
> 
> “It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”
> 
> 
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Click to expand...


And as this Fact Check report points out, eliminating those tax breaks won't keep one American job here.  It's all a dog and pony show by the Democrats.  Do you really think that a couple of thousand dollars in tax breaks is going to play a part in a major decision such as moving your operations overseas?  

The Democrats are trying to tell you that peeing on a three alarm house fire will put the fire out.  Moving expenses may be costly, but not nearly as costly as keeping up with new  US regulations, OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, healthcare regulations, taxation and so on.  Write-offs are nothing more than not paying taxes on the money you spent on expenditures, and it's not all that much.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OIL AND GAS ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIES THAT "OFF SHORE" JOBS? LOL
> 
> THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO AN INDUSTRY WITH RECORD PROFITS. You think they need it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country.  We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.
> 
> As this report points out, it has nothing to do with taxes with the exception that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It has to do with labor costs, education, and consumer demand.
> 
> US companies don't offshore because it's a trend, they offshore because they need to supply American consumers with cheap products.  Those who didn't offshore invested in technology such as automation.  There are even McDonald's restaurants that are now experimenting with employee-less outlets.  Machines will now make your Big Mac combo.
> 
> You can't blame this on Reagan, Republicans or any single entity.  This has been in the making for a long time now, and now that it's here, we are looking for excuses why it is.
> 
> You want to take away tax breaks from oil companies, then don't complain when gasoline increases 20 cents per gallon more, because industry always finds a way to make up for their losses.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing nonsense. Share of US being in unions has shrunk by over half the last 35 years, but it's unions fault? 


*Hint GOOD GOV'T POLICY (something the GOP has been against since Reagan's "GOV'T IS THE PROBLEM" BS!!!)*


Yeah, Corps CAN'T make less money, Corps (and the rich) CAN'T pay more taxes. My fukkn gawd, grow up, grow a brain!



* Reaganomics killed America’s middle class *


*
There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. *Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation’s middle class.

*Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. *In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. T*he natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.*


....Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical “raw capitalism,” what we call “Reaganomics,” or “supply side economics,” our nation’s largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

Reaganomics killed America’s middle class


*Reagan Set Up The Death Of The Middle Class, But China Was The Clincher*

Our 2010 Reagan Revolution Home To Roost series, especially the post Reagan Revolution Home To Roost — In Charts described the beginning of the great decoupling of the American economy from the middle class.

The summary:







Conservative policies transformed the United States from the largest _creditor_ nation to the largest _debtor_ nation in just a few years, and it has only gotten worse since then.






Working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down.






*This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top.*


Reagan Set Up The Death Of The Middle Class, But China Was The Clincher


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your proof that it didn't trickle down?  You think jobs moving overseas is bad now, what do you suppose it would be like if we increased taxes back to pre-Reagan years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? You mean GOOD GOV'T POLICY wouldn't stop that? Having tax policy  that punishes off shoring jobs but rewards creating US jobs?
> 
> Seems LOTS of jobs off shored even though tax rates on the top 1/10th of 1% "make" over half of capital gains/dividends WHILE their effective tax rate has been cut by 1/3rd!!!!
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES TAX POLICY MATTER ON OFF SHORING JOBS ANYWAYS? RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST LABOR COSTS EVER RECORDED IN THE US AND LOWEST CORP TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS, WHERE ARE THOSE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" GOP/DUBYA PROMISED?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas*
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FULL QUESTION:
> 
> When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
> 
> FULL ANSWER:
> 
> It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
> 
> Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.
> 
> Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
> 
> But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
> 
> We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
> 
> Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
> 
> Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) *introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.*
> 
> *Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. * Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.
> 
> “It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”
> 
> 
> Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as this Fact Check report points out, eliminating those tax breaks won't keep one American job here.  It's all a dog and pony show by the Democrats.  Do you really think that a couple of thousand dollars in tax breaks is going to play a part in a major decision such as moving your operations overseas?
> 
> The Democrats are trying to tell you that peeing on a three alarm house fire will put the fire out.  Moving expenses may be costly, but not nearly as costly as keeping up with new  US regulations, OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, healthcare regulations, taxation and so on.  Write-offs are nothing more than not paying taxes on the money you spent on expenditures, and it's not all that much.
Click to expand...


Got it, you can't critically think or read links. Yeah, why doesn't the US look more like China right? 

HINT, US CORP TAXES (WHICH OBAMA PROPOSED YEARS AGO TO DROP TO 28% AND GET RID OF LOOPHOLES, AND USE REVENUES TO FUND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, GOP REFUSES!!) , ISN'T REALLY A BURDEN RIGHT WINGERS CLAIM, IT'S JUST A TALKING POINT


*Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. *So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it*…*Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High






*The corporate tax myth*


-- U.S. corporations pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. There's little debate about that.

Still, some argue the difference in the overall tax burden for U.S. companies isn't nearly as great it appears.


*In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.*

*And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. * Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.


The corporate tax myth


----------



## ninja007

the OP should actually read should freeloaders and liberals and blacks get a job and at least pretend to contribute to society?


----------



## Dad2three

*Corporate Deadbeats: How Companies Get Rich Off Of Taxes*


You and your wallet have a big stake in huge tax-dodging deals being crafted by big American companies, like Burger King merging with Tim Hortons, the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain.

Burger King is looking to swap the 35 percent corporate tax rate in the U.S. for Canada’s 15 percent rate, even though its working headquarters will remain in Miami. The little people—the millions of us who pay our taxes week to week—will pick up some of the tax burden Burger King and other multinationals shirk through these so-called inversions, in which they move their headquarters, on paper, to escape taxes while continuing to enjoy all the benefits of doing business in America.
*
It’s just one of several ways multinationals don’t pay their fair share*, *and they get away with it because the federal government encourages such behavior (YOU KNOW, GOOD GOV'T POLICY???).* If Congress taxed you the way it taxes multinational corporations, you would have a much fatter wallet. If you were Apple, General Electric, Google or Microsoft, taxes would not be a burden at all. Instead, taxes would help you prosper.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/09/12/corporate-deadbeats-how-companies-get-rich-taxes-268303.html


----------



## Dad2three

ninja007 said:


> the OP should actually read should freeloaders and liberals and blacks get a job and at least pretend to contribute to society?




Good job Bubba,. can you give US some Trump and throw in the bad Hispanics too?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?



Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do? 

Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.

Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.

The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars. 

The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country.  We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.



As the expectations of the standard of living rise, people want to earn more money. 

To earn more money you to be more skilled, which means better education.

The problem isn't that crappy jobs are going to China. The problem is the US is failing miserably to take the jobs that pay higher wages. Germany is a perfect example of a country where the education system is geared towards the needs of the workforce. The US is a country where the education system is geared towards the rich and no one else.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country.  We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the expectations of the standard of living rise, people want to earn more money.
> 
> To earn more money you to be more skilled, which means better education.
> 
> The problem isn't that crappy jobs are going to China. The problem is the US is failing miserably to take the jobs that pay higher wages. Germany is a perfect example of a country where the education system is geared towards the needs of the workforce. The US is a country where the education system is geared towards the rich and no one else.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course.  I'm sure that's where union teachers want to take our children: towards the rich as they always have.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely.
> 
> Tax breaks, tax incentives, rich getting richer are all BS excuses for why there are less jobs in this country.  We've out-priced ourselves in labor many years ago thanks to unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the expectations of the standard of living rise, people want to earn more money.
> 
> To earn more money you to be more skilled, which means better education.
> 
> The problem isn't that crappy jobs are going to China. The problem is the US is failing miserably to take the jobs that pay higher wages. Germany is a perfect example of a country where the education system is geared towards the needs of the workforce. The US is a country where the education system is geared towards the rich and no one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course.  I'm sure that's where union teachers want to take our children: towards the rich as they always have.
Click to expand...


I don't like the teaching unions in the US. They are a major part of the problem. As too are the Republican and Democratic parties.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
Click to expand...

The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... so you admit that the "vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes." Since you are aware that they are not carrying their weight, why all the silly socialist whining? Under the current system, the top 25% pay 86% of all federal personal income tax. They pay for our military, our highways, our education and health care, our courts and the very gov't that takes what is theirs not only to pay for all that but to pick up the slack for you socialist slackers. So what is your gripe? That they don't pay 96% or 106%?
> Socialists are the weeping pimple on society's butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I stated that the middle class and poor pay less than 10% of their total income in federal tax. I also stated that the rich and wealthy pay less than that.
Click to expand...


Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking thirty years since Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. Before that the U.S. Built the worlds largest military, interstate highway system and put a man on the moon
> Since supply side we have no major accomplishments as a nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
Click to expand...


*WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
*
Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.



So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?

Federal tax ÷ total income=?

I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.
Click to expand...


What was your total income?


----------



## Hancock

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


You mean the way they do now? 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what happens to most guys who live in their mommy's basement and rarely venture out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.
Click to expand...


No, but if not for unions that guaranteed floor sweepers $18.00 per hour plus benefits, many of those jobs could have remained in the US.  Then you add on taxes, regulations and environmental choke holds, you have all the necessary ingredients to move jobs out of the country. 

Prior to that Republicans did put out the warning signs for years, but they were ignored.  They told the public that the Republicans were only looking out for their rich buddies.  Ignore them.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Unions were indestructible.  

That's why everything today is made in China.  But instead of blaming who was responsible, all we hear from the left is our jobs are overseas because the evil rich man only wanted to get richer; the same left that shop at Wal-Mart every week.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but if not for unions that guaranteed floor sweepers $18.00 per hour plus benefits, many of those jobs could have remained in the US.  Then you add on taxes, regulations and environmental choke holds, you have all the necessary ingredients to move jobs out of the country.
> 
> Prior to that Republicans did put out the warning signs for years, but they were ignored.  They told the public that the Republicans were only looking out for their rich buddies.  Ignore them.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Unions were indestructible.
> 
> That's why everything today is made in China.  But instead of blaming who was responsible, all we hear from the left is our jobs are overseas because the evil rich man only wanted to get richer; the same left that shop at Wal-Mart every week.
Click to expand...


Spot on Ray, but the left will never accept they were part of the problem.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but if not for unions that guaranteed floor sweepers $18.00 per hour plus benefits, many of those jobs could have remained in the US.  Then you add on taxes, regulations and environmental choke holds, you have all the necessary ingredients to move jobs out of the country.
> 
> Prior to that Republicans did put out the warning signs for years, but they were ignored.  They told the public that the Republicans were only looking out for their rich buddies.  Ignore them.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Unions were indestructible.
> 
> That's why everything today is made in China.  But instead of blaming who was responsible, all we hear from the left is our jobs are overseas because the evil rich man only wanted to get richer; the same left that shop at Wal-Mart every week.
Click to expand...


The reason things are made in China is because a person can easily live off of $300 a month in China. So you can pay people $300, $400 a month. In the US this is impossible. 

Everyone knows this. Everyone knows the US should have workers who are earning more because they're producing higher quality goods or doing other things that earn more money. But no, the US hasn't figured this out and hasn't moved education to meet the needs.

Both Reps AND Dems are responsible for this.


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.
Click to expand...

Thanks to a "tax loophole", I don't even have to file a tax return; and, it didn't cost me anything.  Is it any wonder the wealthier complain about having to lobby Congress for their tax loopholes.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but if not for unions that guaranteed floor sweepers $18.00 per hour plus benefits, many of those jobs could have remained in the US.  Then you add on taxes, regulations and environmental choke holds, you have all the necessary ingredients to move jobs out of the country.
> 
> Prior to that Republicans did put out the warning signs for years, but they were ignored.  They told the public that the Republicans were only looking out for their rich buddies.  Ignore them.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Unions were indestructible.
> 
> That's why everything today is made in China.  But instead of blaming who was responsible, all we hear from the left is our jobs are overseas because the evil rich man only wanted to get richer; the same left that shop at Wal-Mart every week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on Ray, but the left will never accept they were part of the problem.
Click to expand...

The problem is the left in China may be having to wade through "molasses on a cold winter day" to get to the point where their labor can simply engender an entitlement to more developed public sector goods and services in their more developed economy to help make their labor more expensive to compete with our more expensive labor.


----------



## danielpalos

Hancock said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the way they do now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

why is being taxed what one is worth a problem for alleged capitalists, under any form of Capitalism?  equality is a social concept not a capital concept.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> Hancock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the way they do now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is being taxed what one is worth a problem for alleged capitalists, under any form of Capitalism?  equality is a social concept not a capital concept.
Click to expand...


Legal, at-will Poverty. enForced by founding FATHers. With a side of case law.


----------



## dblack

To go.


----------



## danielpalos

Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.




Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our industry has went to China.  Who's fault is that?
> 
> Our middle-class has become smaller.  Median family wages has dropped under Obama.
> 
> We went from one of the best education systems?  When was that?
> 
> Student debt is through the roof.  Could it be because supply and demand dictates the cost of college and always has?  You know, those colleges mostly run by liberals?
> 
> The rich are making record profits.  What's wrong with that?  If they made less profit, how would that help you?
> 
> Our infrastructure has gone to ship.  Who's fault is that?  Do you suppose it has anything to do with union costs to repair and rebuild roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry to China, whose fault? The Chinese for opening up their economy and being able to produce things cheaper than America would even be able to do?
> 
> Middle class becoming smaller? Doubtful, maybe slightly smaller because of the recession, hardly Obama's fault, but will probably go back to similar levels later one.
> 
> Student debt is something that has existed for a long time. Universities have to make their money, they can't run on thin air. The issue of whether they're cheap/free or expensive is down to government subsidies.
> 
> The rich are making record profits due to a recession that was helped along massively by two majorly expensive wars.
> 
> The infrastructure is all about spending money on it. But as many people, especially the right, call for lower taxes, that means less money to spend on infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right makes it seem like we should have simply goaded the Chinese into an industrial automation race to make their form of socialism work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but if not for unions that guaranteed floor sweepers $18.00 per hour plus benefits, many of those jobs could have remained in the US.  Then you add on taxes, regulations and environmental choke holds, you have all the necessary ingredients to move jobs out of the country.
> 
> Prior to that Republicans did put out the warning signs for years, but they were ignored.  They told the public that the Republicans were only looking out for their rich buddies.  Ignore them.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  Unions were indestructible.
> 
> That's why everything today is made in China.  But instead of blaming who was responsible, all we hear from the left is our jobs are overseas because the evil rich man only wanted to get richer; the same left that shop at Wal-Mart every week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason things are made in China is because a person can easily live off of $300 a month in China. So you can pay people $300, $400 a month. In the US this is impossible.
> 
> Everyone knows this. Everyone knows the US should have workers who are earning more because they're producing higher quality goods or doing other things that earn more money. But no, the US hasn't figured this out and hasn't moved education to meet the needs.
> 
> Both Reps AND Dems are responsible for this.
Click to expand...


Yanno, there are tons of affordable (Community Colleges, State Universities) higher educational options in this country yet 7% (down from 14% in 2000) don't even finish high school. It's not the lack of education opportunities in America but rather the lack of people who want one in something other than Fine Arts or Philosophy or Underwater Basket Weaving. Not everything is the gov'ts fault or responsibility. Parents are responsible for failing to guide their kids.


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to a "tax loophole", I don't even have to file a tax return; and, it didn't cost me anything.  Is it any wonder the wealthier complain about having to lobby Congress for their tax loopholes.
Click to expand...


Having no income to claim is not a "tax Loophole," Princess, and while I've lived here a long time I have never heard "the wealthier complain about having to lobby Congress for their tax loopholes."


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world...



You are a WINNER!!!
That is hands down the dimmest statement of the day and while it's only 9:45am I am shutting down today's competition 'cause there's just no way anyone can beat that. Congrats!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
Click to expand...


There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.

Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.


----------



## Papageorgio

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're an idiot, so that makes sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> I'll start. Thanks to Republicans, I personally paid zero.
Click to expand...


Well when yo make nothing, you pay nothing.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
Click to expand...


Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.


----------



## SAYIT

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
Click to expand...


Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
Stop lying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> Yanno, there are tons of affordable (Community Colleges, State Universities) higher educational options in this country yet 7% (down from 14% in 2000) don't even finish high school. It's not the lack of education opportunities in America but rather the lack of people who want one in something other than Fine Arts or Philosophy or Underwater Basket Weaving. Not everything is the gov'ts fault or responsibility. Parents are responsible for failing to guide their kids.



I'm not saying it isn't the parents' fault for not guiding their kids. 

However if the parents had bad parents and never learned to be good parents, how are they going to teach their kids?

In the past there were lots of small communities. People worked together, families were generally strong and supported each other. I grew up with a father from one side of the country, a mother from the other and me from somewhere else. My grandparents weren't on hand if the situation arose where they would be needed. In many families there's a single parent, usually mother, who's working all the hours there are in order to just give their kids food on the table. They don't have time to bring them up properly as well. 
As much as it's a great slogan to say that parents should bring their kids up properly, the reality is many don't. So what should we do about it?
The right say nothing. Why? Probably because good parents want their kids to do well in life and if your kids are competing against a bunch of low lifes who single parent mother didn't have time and they didn't finish high school, then all the better, right? Well until they get shot by such a low life that is. 

The left say do something. Often they come up with stuff that sounds nice but also doesn't work well. Or something goes wrong somewhere. 
This appears to be the problem of the US system whereby politicians are just generally useless human beings.

So the siege mentality kicks in and it's taking the US downhill. Wouldn't surprise me if the US becomes more like Honduras and Mexico with each passing moment. I felt like that the first time I went to DC. Now it's just getting worse. Everyone's in it for themselves. Society is fragmenting and breaking up because no one gives a damn about anyone else any more.


----------



## danielpalos

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
Click to expand...

If Capitalists of wealth had more Capital pride, they would be happy to pay the best tax rates in the world, even if they are not from Saks Fifth Avenue.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Capitalists of wealth had more Capital pride, they would be happy to pay the best tax rates in the world, even if they are not from Saks Fifth Avenue.
Click to expand...


The Socialist dictating how others should think. Interesting.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
Click to expand...


Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.

I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.

You don't and I find that insane.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.


 Flat tax would never go through.
 The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
 Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.


----------



## gipper

Maryland Patriot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.



Bullshit.

You take away the force and see how many people pay their taxes then.

Welfare queens describes the multigenerational welfare recipients, assholes too sorry or irresponsible to work, illegals aliens on welfare, anybody getting a subsidy or bailout and those countries we give foreign aid to or fight their wars for them.  It is a lot of people.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
Click to expand...


Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing*
> 
> Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.
> 
> The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.
> 
> “That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an  interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.
> 
> *
> Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.*”
> 
> 
> The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- *has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners.* In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."
> 
> Spe*cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing
> 
> 
> GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> *Spe**cifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains*. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And clearly D2Three is here to spew baseless socialist BS and when exposed, to pepper his betters with invective. Nearly 10,000 posts in little more than a year with months off for bad behavior. Having perused a couple hundred of his posts his pattern repeats itself ad nauseam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rights inability (like Paps BS premise that Buffett doesn't want his tax rates to increase, as HIS proposals would double his tax burden) to be honest is noted Bubba.
> 
> Socialists? Yep, just like the Founders who created a SOCIETY. You Klowns should try to understand what socialism ACTUALLY means Bubs
> 
> The right wing echo chamber sure has done a good job of having their reactionaries react with knew jerk to "socialists" lol
Click to expand...


You're possibly more ignorant than rdean... and I didn't think that humanly possible.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You take away the force and see how many people pay their taxes then.
> 
> Welfare queens describes the multigenerational welfare recipients, assholes too sorry or irresponsible to work, illegals aliens on welfare, anybody getting a subsidy or bailout and those countries we give foreign aid to or fight their wars for them.  It is a lot of people.
Click to expand...


I can try to help the ignorant, but stupid is chronic and congenital.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
Click to expand...


The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.

By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.


----------



## dblack

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
Click to expand...


Law enforcement is legitimized coercion, a threat of violence. The question is when is it justified, and when is it not.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Reagan
> 1. Our industry has want to China
> 2. Our middle class has become far smaller
> 3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
> 4. Student debt is through the roof!
> 5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
> 6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
> 7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.
> 
> The republican plan sucks ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
Click to expand...








What are the federal government's sources of revenue?


----------



## kaz

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! .



So by that logic, should we tax liberals more too?


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, sure











COINCIDES WITH DEBT BLOWING UP TOO RIGHT? What happened?


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
Click to expand...




*The Myths of Reaganomics*

_*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
Click to expand...


*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
*
And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

*The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
*
OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top  1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
Click to expand...


Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
Click to expand...


Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
> the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.
> 
> 11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
Click to expand...


Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
Click to expand...

*
YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%*

You just can't prove it.
How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> 
> Moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
Click to expand...


Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%*
> 
> You just can't prove it.
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
Click to expand...


*The Myths of Reaganomics*

_*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*

....But a *National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase* (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that _did_ enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.



LIBERTARIAN MISES

The Myths of Reaganomics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol
> *
> Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
Click to expand...

*
he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
*
Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
That's awful!
What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%*
> 
> You just can't prove it.
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> ....But a *National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase* (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that _did_ enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTARIAN MISES
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
Click to expand...


How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
Click to expand...


Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners! 

RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%*
> 
> You just can't prove it.
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> ....But a *National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase* (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that _did_ enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTARIAN MISES
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
Click to expand...




Fact free whining? Yes Bubba, that's about ALL you have. Thanks for playing

The man and his cronies (most of whom we saw in Dubya’s admin) should have been impeached for real crimes of high treason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
Click to expand...


*Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*

That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
Click to expand...

*
No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
*
Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes *_*even though*_* the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.
> *
> And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.
> 
> *The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
> *
> OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%*
> 
> You just can't prove it.
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.* It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> ....But a *National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase* (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that _did_ enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTARIAN MISES
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did their income tax rates change?
> How did their payroll tax rates change?
> 
> Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact free whining? Yes Bubba, that's about ALL you have. Thanks for playing
> 
> The man and his cronies (most of whom we saw in Dubya’s admin) should have been impeached for real crimes of high treason.
Click to expand...


*Fact free whining?*

Until you post the SS tax rate before he entered office and the SS rate when he left, your whining will continue to be fact free.


----------



## danielpalos

which administration holds the record for lowest unemployment in relatively modern times?


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
> 
> By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.
Click to expand...

What makes our law "legitimate?"  Nothing that I can discern.

There's no distinction between force and violence.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*
> 
> That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
> I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.
Click to expand...


You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 
> 
> " WHILE increasing SS *taxes *60%"
> 
> You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
Click to expand...



Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
> 
> By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes our law "legitimate?"  Nothing that I can discern.
> 
> There's no distinction between force and violence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


YOU IGNORING THE FACT I BACKED UP MY POSIT, THE BOTTOM 50% OF US WENT FROM NEARLY 18% OF GDP IN INCOME  IN 1980 TO 11% BY 2012,  IS NOTED BUBBA! 


LOL


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
> 
> By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes our law "legitimate?"  Nothing that I can discern.
> 
> There's no distinction between force and violence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The more you post, the more I roll my eyes.  What decided you to become an anarchist?


----------



## Flash

Dad2three said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?



The thing that is hidden in that chart is the reality of the payroll tax, the income tax, and the corporate tax.

The payroll tax is really not a tax at all in the strictest sense of the word because the money theoretically goes into a retirement fund that an individual can recoup.

The income tax, on the other hand, is a trillion dollars honest to goodness tax that is paid out mostly by the top wage earners.  50% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of income earners.  80% of the revenue comes from the top 20%.  About half the people in the country don't pay anything into the fund at all but yet they are the ones that gets the welfare payments, which makes that tax legalized stealing.

The corporate tax is actually a very cruel tax on all Americans.  Corporations really don't pay the tax.  They collect the revenue from the American people for the tax with their sale of goods and services and then pass it to the government as an expense of doing business.  Those taxes are hidden in the cost of food, fuel, goods, services and most of the things that we buy.  When you buy a box of cereal made by General Mills you are providing the revenue to pay General Mill's income tax.  The money comes out of your pocket.


----------



## Flash

Dad2three said:


> [
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs



That is a good reason not to vote for any big government Progressive, whether they be Democrat or Republican.

The Democrats promises to raise your taxes and they usually do it.

Republicans promises not to raise your taxes but they usually do it some way or another.  Reagan is a great example.

Good reason not to vote for anybody in either one of those big government parties,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*
> 
> That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
> I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol
Click to expand...


*You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers?
*
Taxes were cut for everybody.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
Click to expand...


Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
Why is that?


----------



## SAYIT

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for the _finest_ tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
Click to expand...


It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.


----------



## Wry Catcher

SAYIT said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.

Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.

Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
> 
> By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes our law "legitimate?"  Nothing that I can discern.
> 
> There's no distinction between force and violence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORING THE FACT I BACKED UP MY POSIT, THE BOTTOM 50% OF US WENT FROM NEARLY 18% OF GDP IN INCOME  IN 1980 TO 11% BY 2012,  IS NOTED BUBBA!
> 
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with whether our laws are "legitimate?"


----------



## SAYIT

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.
> 
> Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed.  Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
Click to expand...


It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).


----------



## dcraelin

OnePercenter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how it is structured.  Now the wealthy get their tax breaks with the 70k page tax code set up purposely to enrich them and the pols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical federal flat tax planned is 10%. The vast majority of the middle class and poor PAY less than 10% in federal taxes.
> 
> If you like Trumps tax plan, you need to keep in mind it doesn't effect/affect 'The Donald.' or me, or Bill Gates, because were all corporations.
Click to expand...


just saw that Greece now has something like a 23% sales tax.......  That is a realistic type rate for flat taxes, or national sales taxes. 

Trump has actually said the rich can pay a little more, percentage wise.


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IRAQ WAR
> 
> hundreds of dems cast literally thousands of votes to continue funding it for a decade
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have boots on the ground it is hard to pull their funding. Republicans thrive on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it's especially hard for  you to end when you're voting FOR something idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know
> 
> Especially with republicans playing the you don't support our troops card
Click to expand...

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.........

Army lays out plan to cut 40,000 soldiers

Liberals love to cut the military and nothing else.........now break out your pom poms and say TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THE RICH RAH.

They need a new line...............sniff sniff..............perhaps rehab.


----------



## Wry Catcher

SAYIT said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
Click to expand...


You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.



ROFLMNAO!~

How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
Click to expand...






Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
Click to expand...


Sorry, you may find me adorable, I find that creepy and I find you to be repulsive and retarded.

I'm curious though, have you ever taken a University Course on political philosophy?  If so, did you pass it?  Or are you simply a blatherskite?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you may find me adorable, I find that creepy and I find you to be repulsive and retarded.
> 
> I'm curious though, have you ever taken a University Course on political philosophy?  If so, did you pass it?  Or are you simply a blatherskite?
Click to expand...


OH!  Thank you.
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

Again, the key to defeating Leftist in debate, rests upon two key fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- _Get them to speak._


----------



## danielpalos

... Only if they are really really "worth it".


----------



## SAYIT

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
Click to expand...


Uh huh ... and despite your lame ad hominem the fact remains that the same socialism that brought down the USSR and enslaved generations of Cubans as well as Eastern Europeans is attempting to creep its way into America. Just in case you "Worker's Paradise" types are wondering, informed, freedom-loving people will not allow you to steal from our kids the same opportunity to succeed (or fail) on their merits that their parents and grandparents enjoyed. 
In a word: FUCK YOU.


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh ... and despite your lame ad hominem the fact remains that the same socialism that brought down the USSR and enslaved generations of Cubans as well as Eastern Europeans is attempting to creep its way into America. Just in case you "Worker's Paradise" types are wondering, informed, freedom-loving people will not allow you to steal from our kids the same opportunity to succeed (or fail) on their merits that their parents and grandparents enjoyed.
> In a word: FUCK YOU.
Click to expand...

dude, Capitalism died in 1929; you are soaking in socialism.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!~
> 
> How _Adorable _is it when the Red's run to deny that they exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you may find me adorable, I find that creepy and I find you to be repulsive and retarded.
> 
> I'm curious though, have you ever taken a University Course on political philosophy?  If so, did you pass it?  Or are you simply a blatherskite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  Thank you.
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Reader, do you see how easy this is?
> 
> Again, the key to defeating Leftist in debate, rests upon two key fundamental elements:
> 
> 1- Find a Leftist.
> 
> 2- _Get them to speak._
Click to expand...

Q.  Are you simply a blatherskite
A.  A simple blathersksite


----------



## Wry Catcher

SAYIT said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh ... and despite your lame ad hominem the fact remains that the same socialism that brought down the USSR and enslaved generations of Cubans as well as Eastern Europeans is attempting to creep its way into America. Just in case you "Worker's Paradise" types are wondering, informed, freedom-loving people will not allow you to steal from our kids the same opportunity to succeed (or fail) on their merits that their parents and grandparents enjoyed.
> In a word: FUCK YOU.
Click to expand...


Wow, a perfidious rant wrapped in straw and framed by historical ignorance.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
Click to expand...


So can you prove taxes aren't forced?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can you prove taxes aren't forced?
Click to expand...


Yes, taxes unpaid will result in a consequence.  Yet the essence of this question suggests you have no need for government, or at least a government capable of building roads and hundreds of other activities which make life easier.

So the question really has no merit; there is no developed country which does not impose taxes on its citizens.  Voluntary donations are't feasible, so paying taxes must be made mandatory.


----------



## auditor0007

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.


----------



## Papageorgio

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged. 

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force. 

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.


----------



## sealybobo

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
Click to expand...


That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich. 

Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.



That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.  

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).


----------



## Politico

2aguy said:


> Mitt Romey paid 1.94 million in taxes in 2011….he paid more than his fair share…….if you want high tax rates like they had after WW2 the way you make them work is to destroy the industrial base of the rest of the world, like they did in WW2…..and then, when Kennedy lowered the tax rate, the government brought in more money, not less, and dittos Reagan……
> 
> High tax rates are immoral……and counter productive.


LOL.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
Click to expand...


So let me understand this from a liberal prospective: 

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?  

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
Click to expand...


If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems. 
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

auditor0007 said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
Click to expand...


Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.
> 
> Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.
> 
> Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way.  This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal.  Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So can you prove taxes aren't forced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, taxes unpaid will result in a consequence.  Yet the essence of this question suggests you have no need for government, or at least a government capable of building roads and hundreds of other activities which make life easier.
> 
> So the question really has no merit; there is no developed country which does not impose taxes on its citizens.  Voluntary donations are't feasible, so paying taxes must be made mandatory.
Click to expand...


Or in other words, forced. 

People don't mind paying taxes so much.  People get upset with how they are spent.  The more you spend, the more you need to tax people, and that's where the problem is. 

Our federal taxes should only be used for those itemized expenditures in the US Constitution.  Yes, roads, bridges, postal department and so on.  Outside of that, no, we shouldn't be funding things like Planned Parenthood, cowboy poetry, cash for clunkers, PBS and so on.


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
Click to expand...


Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and _every_ biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
Click to expand...


You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass. 

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.


----------



## thanatos144

Ray From Cleveland said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
Click to expand...

What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
Click to expand...


It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure


Says the idiot living in the end of progressive economy.  every time true capitalism and free marketing is tried more and more people live better lives.... unfortunately assholes like you keep electing people who hate liberty because you are jealous and angry that you have to work you lazy ass

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
Click to expand...

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

thanatos144 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do. 

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.


----------



## Papageorgio

SAYIT said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and the same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
Click to expand...


So basically anyone that dares to challenge is flawed thinking is of low moral character. The absolute absurdity and stupidity of his logic is just mind numbing. Talk about doubling down on dishonesty and stupidity.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and _every_ biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.
Click to expand...


I didn't say all employers are among the rich, did I? No, no, no I did not. So why are you telling me that I did?

I'm talking about the rich, not employers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
Click to expand...


Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty? 

You have supply and demand backwards.  The more the supply, the lower the cost.  The less the supply, the higher the cost. 

During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one.  That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them.  It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.


----------



## thanatos144

Ray From Cleveland said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
Click to expand...

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.
Click to expand...

They should pay thier own costs not make the tax payer.  Theft is theft whether you steal or whether you get the government to do it for you 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and _every_ biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say all employers are among the rich, did I? No, no, no I did not. So why are you telling me that I did?
> 
> I'm talking about the rich, not employers.
Click to expand...


"If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers..."

Sure sounds like you are talking about rich employers but then I often get the impression you really don't know what you are saying.


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
Click to expand...

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.
Click to expand...


Well if it did, then it would be no different than it is now.  I would still have to file with the IRS, still have to list all my deductions, still be paying the same amount of tax that I would have to pay with or without a flat tax.  

After I list my deductions, that's where the profit is at if there is any at all.  Then I do get taxed on that profit.


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
Click to expand...


As Eagle noted, your legit biz expenses (prop repairs, maintenance, management)  would still be deductible. The flat tax would then be applied to your to your net profit, just as it is now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

thanatos144 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


LOL, you don't want my bills. 

Yeah, people complain about write-offs all the time.  But without them, think of what your groceries might cost, your gasoline, your mortgage payment or rent.  How do cities and states attract businesses to their areas for their citizens to have jobs?  That's right, they offer tax-free property or even subsidies.  

"If you want more of something, subsidize it.  If you want less of something, tax it." 
Ronald Reagan


----------



## thanatos144

Ray From Cleveland said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't want my bills.
> 
> Yeah, people complain about write-offs all the time.  But without them, think of what your groceries might cost, your gasoline, your mortgage payment or rent.  How do cities and states attract businesses to their areas for their citizens to have jobs?  That's right, they offer tax-free property or even subsidies.
> 
> "If you want more of something, subsidize it.  If you want less of something, tax it."
> Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

It would cost what the market can afford you idiot. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I got it right the first time.


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if it did, then it would be no different than it is now.  I would still have to file with the IRS, still have to list all my deductions, still be paying the same amount of tax that I would have to pay with or without a flat tax.
> 
> After I list my deductions, that's where the profit is at if there is any at all.  Then I do get taxed on that profit.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we would still need a tax code and accountants for corporate returns but the vast majority of Americans would be able to do their taxes in 15 minutes or less and legions of accountants and tax attorneys and IRSers could be out of work.


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.


----------



## thanatos144

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
Click to expand...

No he shouldn't.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it right the first time.
Click to expand...


If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty?
> 
> You have supply and demand backwards.  The more the supply, the lower the cost.  The less the supply, the higher the cost.
> 
> During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one.  That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them.  It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.
Click to expand...


Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it right the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your support. 

I have it correct.  People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes.  That's not a tax write-off.  A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.  

Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> 
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it right the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.
Click to expand...


Pigeon


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your support.
> 
> I have it correct.  People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes.  That's not a tax write-off.  A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.
> 
> Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah ... he's a bit of a hot head but not really a bad guy. I think he is a bit confused on this issue and maybe just has a bug up his butt today.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it right the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pigeon
Click to expand...

Dove


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
Click to expand...


Which wouldn't happen.  He would only increase the price of his goods to make up the loss.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your support.
> 
> I have it correct.  People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes.  That's not a tax write-off.  A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.
> 
> Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... he's a bit of a hot head but not really a bad guy. I think he is a bit confused on this issue and maybe just has a bug up his butt today.
Click to expand...


Rough night. LOL!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
> The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty?
> 
> You have supply and demand backwards.  The more the supply, the lower the cost.  The less the supply, the higher the cost.
> 
> During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one.  That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them.  It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.
Click to expand...



Supply and demand. 

If you have a worker and they know that if they lose their job it'll be hard to get another one, they're going to be more willing to work hard and keep their job. 
If you have a worker who knows that you can't afford to let them go, then they became more about their rights and taking more liberties.

Also, supply and demand. You need to hire someone, well, I'm going to demand a pay rise to move to your company from my job now. 
I can't get a job, I'll take what you're willing to pay me.

So, more unemployment = better staff for lower wages. Less unemployment means higher wages for worse work. 

For companies who employ people at the low end of the wage scale, this is certainly true. For a company like Walmart, McDonalds, KFC etc, their profits are going to be directly related to the amount of money they have to pay out.

Sure, there's the issue of people not being able to afford your goods. Depends what you're selling I guess. But then again poor people with no job are getting money. How many people on welfare go to Walmart, eat at McDonalds or KFC? Probably a lot. Poorer people eat worse, and buy worse stuff.

Ferrari, BMW etc who employ mostly higher wage labor with skills, and who sell to richer people are probably not going to be affected much by this anyway. 

Mid range companies might see it swing around and take hits on both sides.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> "If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers..."
> 
> Sure sounds like you are talking about rich employers but then I often get the impression you really don't know what you are saying.



Doesn't surprise me that someone like you wouldn't get what I'm saying.


----------



## danielpalos

i would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for ceding the point and their argument me, simply because i say they are wrong.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far



Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective. 

No, I'm not a Marxist at all. 
Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either. 

But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
Click to expand...


Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
Click to expand...

Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.


----------



## sealybobo

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
Click to expand...

I don't belong to any organized political parties either. I'm a Democrat


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
Click to expand...


Finally? Lol! I've been saying this since Clinton and Congress allowed people to remortgage their homes at 125% over the worth. I saw 2008 coming in the mid 90's.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally? Lol! I've been saying this since Clinton and Congress allowed people to remortgage their homes at 125% over the worth. I saw 2008 coming in the mid 90's.
Click to expand...

The bust cycle or the lowest unemployment rates in recent memory during that administration?


----------



## eagle1462010

Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
Keep It Simple Stupid.

Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.  

Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

eagle1462010 said:


> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.



Except it will never happen.  Politicians from both sides have been talking about the same thing for decades.  Yet, no matter who gets in, nobody touches the tax code.  If anything, they add more to it and make it even more confusing and complicated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it will never happen.  Politicians from both sides have been talking about the same thing for decades.  Yet, no matter who gets in, nobody touches the tax code.  If anything, they add more to it and make it even more confusing and complicated.
Click to expand...


*Yet, no matter who gets in, nobody touches the tax code.
*
Reagan massively simplified it in the 1986 Tax Reform.


----------



## dcraelin

eagle1462010 said:


> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.




Part of why it is so complicated is because tax avoiders are always using loopholes......
but also part of it is laws passed to CREATE loopholes....so I would  say youre right in part.

A number of years ago when I was working a construction job, we had to disrupt, a bit, the traffic by a convenience store. The owner bellyached and complained about all the lost business so that finally my boss who worked for the state agreed to pay for new paving for his lot, but you just know that this same guy was one always complaining about the government  spending too much money.....but when he gets the chance to gouge the taxpayer he goes for it full tilt.....This is how I imagine most of those on here complaining about high taxes are....hypocrites.


----------



## eagle1462010

dcraelin said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of why it is so complicated is because tax avoiders are always using loopholes......
> but also part of it is laws passed to CREATE loopholes....so I would  say youre right in part.
> 
> A number of years ago when I was working a construction job, we had to disrupt, a bit, the traffic by a convenience store. The owner bellyached and complained about all the lost business so that finally my boss who worked for the state agreed to pay for new paving for his lot, but you just know that this same guy was one always complaining about the government  spending too much money.....but when he gets the chance to gouge the taxpayer he goes for it full tilt.....This is how I imagine most of those on here complaining about high taxes are....hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I just want a simplified code to avoid the BS.  The new laws are to create loop holes and nothing more to me.................Those that abuse the loop holes aren't paying the higher tax rates and those being honest are probably paying more..............

Kill the code and redo the whole thing...................whether it's existing system or to the Flat tax that I prefer.


----------



## danielpalos

Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?


----------



## Contumacious

danielpalos said:


> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?




*THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ANY FORM OF CAPITALISM"

IN THE US WE HAVE FASCISM WHICH IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM.*



.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?



How do you measure capital worth?


----------



## thanatos144

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bullshit.  If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
Click to expand...

No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which wouldn't happen.  He would only increase the price of his goods to make up the loss.
Click to expand...

Then he would ether make it or go out of business.... that's called free market 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

Contumacious said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ANY FORM OF CAPITALISM"
> 
> IN THE US WE HAVE FASCISM WHICH IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


*No deduction.
*
What is your definition of deduction?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure capital worth?
Click to expand...

In usual and customary manner, of course.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure capital worth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In usual and customary manner, of course.
Click to expand...

 Spell it out.


----------



## Wry Catcher

SAYIT said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.


----------



## Wry Catcher

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> Says the idiot living in the end of progressive economy.  every time true capitalism and free marketing is tried more and more people live better lives.... unfortunately assholes like you keep electing people who hate liberty because you are jealous and angry that you have to work you lazy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


When has "true Capitalism and free marketing" existed in the US?  My guess never, but it was approached during the gilded age and in the decade prior to the Crash of '29.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure capital worth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In usual and customary manner, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spell it out.
Click to expand...

Which weights and measures would you prefer?  It doesn't matter to me since I am not special pleading that detail because I am pursuing a Cause.


----------



## dcraelin

eagle1462010 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of why it is so complicated is because tax avoiders are always using loopholes......
> but also part of it is laws passed to CREATE loopholes....so I would  say youre right in part.
> 
> A number of years ago when I was working a construction job, we had to disrupt, a bit, the traffic by a convenience store. The owner bellyached and complained about all the lost business so that finally my boss who worked for the state agreed to pay for new paving for his lot, but you just know that this same guy was one always complaining about the government  spending too much money.....but when he gets the chance to gouge the taxpayer he goes for it full tilt.....This is how I imagine most of those on here complaining about high taxes are....hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just want a simplified code to avoid the BS.  The new laws are to create loop holes and nothing more to me.................Those that abuse the loop holes aren't paying the higher tax rates and those being honest are probably paying more..............
> 
> Kill the code and redo the whole thing...................whether it's existing system or to the Flat tax that I prefer.
Click to expand...


I agree to a certain extent...but think we aught to start by whittling away at the loopholes.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe in general forms of taxation whenever possible.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
Click to expand...


So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.

If I see it raining does that make me a fish? 
If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?


----------



## LittleNipper

I believe that the Judges, Senators, Congressmen, and the President should not get a wage. They should receive only donations, and then they wouldn't be so wealthy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure capital worth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In usual and customary manner, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spell it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which weights and measures would you prefer?  It doesn't matter to me since I am not special pleading that detail because I am pursuing a Cause.
Click to expand...


So you're going to audit everyone's belongings, determine their value and tax people based on that?
How much is this pair of jeans worth? What about my CDs, DVDs or TVs?
Or are you just going to tax financial assets, housing, autos?
How do we implement your idiotic cause?
Spell it out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

dcraelin said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of why it is so complicated is because tax avoiders are always using loopholes......
> but also part of it is laws passed to CREATE loopholes....so I would  say youre right in part.
> 
> A number of years ago when I was working a construction job, we had to disrupt, a bit, the traffic by a convenience store. The owner bellyached and complained about all the lost business so that finally my boss who worked for the state agreed to pay for new paving for his lot, but you just know that this same guy was one always complaining about the government  spending too much money.....but when he gets the chance to gouge the taxpayer he goes for it full tilt.....This is how I imagine most of those on here complaining about high taxes are....hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just want a simplified code to avoid the BS.  The new laws are to create loop holes and nothing more to me.................Those that abuse the loop holes aren't paying the higher tax rates and those being honest are probably paying more..............
> 
> Kill the code and redo the whole thing...................whether it's existing system or to the Flat tax that I prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to a certain extent...but think we aught to start by whittling away at the loopholes.
Click to expand...


Which loopholes? Any specifics?


----------



## thanatos144

Wry Catcher said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> Says the idiot living in the end of progressive economy.  every time true capitalism and free marketing is tried more and more people live better lives.... unfortunately assholes like you keep electing people who hate liberty because you are jealous and angry that you have to work you lazy ass
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When has "true Capitalism and free marketing" existed in the US?  My guess never, but it was approached during the gilded age and in the decade prior to the Crash of '29.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't recognize it anyway 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


*No deduction.
*
What is your definition of deduction?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
Click to expand...


Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk



frigidweirdo said:


> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?


No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think



frigidweirdo said:


> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?



Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
Click to expand...


Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.


----------



## dcraelin

Toddsterpatriot said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want to keep the current system of taxation is beyond me.  Many posts ago I stated the KISS Principle.
> Keep It Simple Stupid.
> 
> Our tax laws are too danged complicated.  The system needs to simplified and get rid of the 70k pages of rules and regulations that have been put their to abuse the system.  Get rid of and replace it with a simplified system is what we need.  That makes it harder to cheat the system, and makes it easier for everyone to file and not have to hire the CPA's to do your taxes.
> 
> Keep it Simple.  Repeal the whole code and replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of why it is so complicated is because tax avoiders are always using loopholes......
> but also part of it is laws passed to CREATE loopholes....so I would  say youre right in part.
> 
> A number of years ago when I was working a construction job, we had to disrupt, a bit, the traffic by a convenience store. The owner bellyached and complained about all the lost business so that finally my boss who worked for the state agreed to pay for new paving for his lot, but you just know that this same guy was one always complaining about the government  spending too much money.....but when he gets the chance to gouge the taxpayer he goes for it full tilt.....This is how I imagine most of those on here complaining about high taxes are....hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just want a simplified code to avoid the BS.  The new laws are to create loop holes and nothing more to me.................Those that abuse the loop holes aren't paying the higher tax rates and those being honest are probably paying more..............
> 
> Kill the code and redo the whole thing...................whether it's existing system or to the Flat tax that I prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree to a certain extent...but think we aught to start by whittling away at the loopholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which loopholes? Any specifics?
Click to expand...


hedge fund operators get some kind of break as I understand it. on interest income?

interest income on tax-exempt bonds for stadiums built for the rich particularly irks me.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
Click to expand...


relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.

And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.
> 
> No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
> Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.
> 
> But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
Click to expand...


So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......

I don't understand your last sentence.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
Click to expand...


Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.

How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, seeing that the rich want a lot of people to be poor makes me a Marxist? I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see it raining does that make me a fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a Koran does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.
> 
> How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both
Click to expand...


So, in your mind on content is going off and trying to label everyone you don't agree with as a Marxist. Of give me a break. I'm tired of this nonsense.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight from the manifesto, that is the rhetoric that justifies Marxism.  It's also butt stupid.  The "rich" are people, there are all sorts of us.  Your bigoted screed lumping us together is the typical stupidity that comes from flaming dogmatics like you, Hitler and the kkk
> 
> No, but growing fins does.  you didn't say Marxists think that, you said you think what Marxists think
> 
> Again, you said what the Marxists think, this is a faulty analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.
> 
> How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your mind on content is going off and trying to label everyone you don't agree with as a Marxist. Of give me a break. I'm tired of this nonsense.
Click to expand...


Replace "don't agree with" with "who endlessly spews Marxist rhetoric" and you're getting it


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez dude, you might want to, you know, go on vacation and take it easy for a while. Seems like the bloody pressure's way too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.
> 
> How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your mind on content is going off and trying to label everyone you don't agree with as a Marxist. Of give me a break. I'm tired of this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace "don't agree with" with "who endlessly spews Marxist rhetoric" and you're getting it
Click to expand...


Excuse me sir, could you tell me the way to the ignore button?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> relax guy.  I'ts just a discussion, don't get so worked up about it.  Maybe when you calm down we can discuss it again.
> 
> And that's what you'd say if someone said your bigoted hate crap about blacks or women, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.
> 
> How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your mind on content is going off and trying to label everyone you don't agree with as a Marxist. Of give me a break. I'm tired of this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace "don't agree with" with "who endlessly spews Marxist rhetoric" and you're getting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me sir, could you tell me the way to the ignore button?
Click to expand...


you keep pumping class warfare claiming the rich want the poor to stay poor and don't get the connection between that and marxism?  Seriously?


----------



## danielpalos

In my opinion, it is not a question of paying Taxes but a question of Pareto Optimal implementation of any public policy scheme.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People via our Social Contracts and supreme laws of the land.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> In my opinion, it is not a question of paying Taxes but a question of Pareto Optimal implementation of any public policy scheme.
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People via our Social Contracts and supreme laws of the land.



David Carradine


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, it is not a question of paying Taxes but a question of Pareto Optimal implementation of any public policy scheme.
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People via our Social Contracts and supreme laws of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Carradine
Click to expand...

unfortunately, this issue requires social Powers that may be even mightier than the fist or the sword; the word and the Pen.


----------



## auditor0007

Ray From Cleveland said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
Click to expand...

.
Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
Click to expand...


Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
Click to expand...

Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

auditor0007 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
Click to expand...


*  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*

Reducing those rates was a great idea.


----------



## auditor0007

Toddsterpatriot said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
Click to expand...


As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.  This helped the wealthy out and hurt the middle class.  Long term investment is currently considered over one year.  That is absurd.  If you have a substantial gain that only takes a bit over one year, why should it be considered anything other than earned income?  Longer term gains are a different story.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

auditor0007 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.  This helped the wealthy out and hurt the middle class.  Long term investment is currently considered over one year.  That is absurd.  If you have a substantial gain that only takes a bit over one year, why should it be considered anything other than earned income?  Longer term gains are a different story.
Click to expand...


*As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.*

They didn't raise the income tax rate because they lowered the cap gains rate.
I agree, Bush I, Clinton and Obama shouldn't have hiked taxes.
Drop the top rate back to 28%.
Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%.


----------



## auditor0007

Toddsterpatriot said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.  This helped the wealthy out and hurt the middle class.  Long term investment is currently considered over one year.  That is absurd.  If you have a substantial gain that only takes a bit over one year, why should it be considered anything other than earned income?  Longer term gains are a different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.*
> 
> They didn't raise the income tax rate because they lowered the cap gains rate.
> I agree, Bush I, Clinton and Obama shouldn't have hiked taxes.
> Drop the top rate back to 28%.
> Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%.
Click to expand...


I have no problem dropping the corporate tax rate to 20%. The problem is that tax revenue must come from somewhere or we will continue with very large deficits.  Discretionary spending is down to less than 1/3 of the budget, meaning cutting spending is not going to save much, especially when much of that spending actually helps the economy.  Poor people can't pay the bulk of the taxes.  Those have to come from the middle class and the wealthy, and yes, the wealthy should pay more than the middle class.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

auditor0007 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.  This helped the wealthy out and hurt the middle class.  Long term investment is currently considered over one year.  That is absurd.  If you have a substantial gain that only takes a bit over one year, why should it be considered anything other than earned income?  Longer term gains are a different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As they reduced the capital gains rate, they increased the income tax rate.*
> 
> They didn't raise the income tax rate because they lowered the cap gains rate.
> I agree, Bush I, Clinton and Obama shouldn't have hiked taxes.
> Drop the top rate back to 28%.
> Drop the corporate tax rate to 20%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem dropping the corporate tax rate to 20%. The problem is that tax revenue must come from somewhere or we will continue with very large deficits.  Discretionary spending is down to less than 1/3 of the budget, meaning cutting spending is not going to save much, especially when much of that spending actually helps the economy.  Poor people can't pay the bulk of the taxes.  Those have to come from the middle class and the wealthy, and yes, the wealthy should pay more than the middle class.
Click to expand...



* Poor people can't pay the bulk of the taxes.* 

Poor people pay almost none of the taxes.

*Those have to come from the middle class and the wealthy, and yes, the wealthy should pay more than the middle class
*
What is the income range of the middle class?


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure this will satisfy you but I've paid more in taxes than you have earned in your life. Feel better now?


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.



The capitalist idea is for the least wealthy to benefit from the fruit of _their labor_ ... not from the labor of others.


----------



## SAYIT

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about...
Click to expand...


Woo ... the irony is strong with you. Evidently the truth hurts.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
Click to expand...


Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.

Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
Click to expand...


Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.

Force:

the definition of force

Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.


----------



## Contumacious

danielpalos said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ANY FORM OF CAPITALISM"
> 
> IN THE US WE HAVE FASCISM WHICH IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
Click to expand...




*ONLY SOMEONE RETARDED TO THE MAX WOULD DARE SAY THAT UNDER SOCIALISM THE SO-CALLED  POOR BENEFITS. ASK THE SOMALIANS FIRST.*


.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
Click to expand...

enforce
[en-fawrs, -fohrs] 
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
1.
to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2.
*to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
3.
to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4.
to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5.
to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
He enforced his argument by adding details.

The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.

Thanks for being so funny.


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The capitalist idea is for the least wealthy to benefit from the fruit of _their labor_ ... not from the labor of others.
Click to expand...

you say that until you cry "nanny, State, please bail me" out with the (other) Peoples Tax monies.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.
> 
> We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
Click to expand...

to me, it just means i have already acquired and possessed a clue and a Cause, you haven't.


----------



## danielpalos

Contumacious said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't tax rates be based on capital worth, not social worth, under any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ANY FORM OF CAPITALISM"
> 
> IN THE US WE HAVE FASCISM WHICH IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ONLY SOMEONE RETARDED TO THE MAX WOULD DARE SAY THAT UNDER SOCIALISM THE SO-CALLED  POOR BENEFITS. ASK THE SOMALIANS FIRST.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

what are you referring to.  can you re-state your position in a more cogent and concise manner?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to me, it just means i have already acquired and possessed a clue and a Cause, you haven't.
Click to expand...


Fine by me, live the way you want.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
Click to expand...

sometimes the right really does seem that clueless and that Causeless.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes the right really does seem that clueless and that Causeless.
Click to expand...


I have a cause, sorry you are narrow minded and cannot see the scope.


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The capitalist idea is for the least wealthy to benefit from the fruit of _their labor_ ... not from the labor of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you say that until you cry "nanny, State, please bail me" out with the (other) Peoples Tax monies.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Princess. Like most biz types I've had my wins and taken my lumps (especially in commercial real estate, 2007-2013) and I've never requested nor received any gov't help. However I will say that when I'm going well our gov't is always 1st in line to grab its share but _remarkably_ silent when things are not going well.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes the right really does seem that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a cause, sorry you are narrow minded and cannot see the scope.
Click to expand...

What scope it that, micro-economics Person?


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to the Right; i already know they Only have a problem with Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The capitalist idea is for the least wealthy to benefit from the fruit of _their labor_ ... not from the labor of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you say that until you cry "nanny, State, please bail me" out with the (other) Peoples Tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Princess. Like most biz types I've had my wins and taken my lumps (especially in commercial real estate, 2007-2013) and I've never requested nor received any gov't help. However I will say that when I'm going well our gov't is always 1st in line to grab its share but _remarkably_ silent when things are not going well.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter; sales transactions must have been influenced by policies public regarding real estate, princess.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are writing about.  You're simply a parrot, echoing the current meme, aka The RED SCARE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
Click to expand...



I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.


----------



## danielpalos

Force may be required for compulsion regarding infidels, protestants, and renegades to our own laws.


----------



## SAYIT

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
Click to expand...


Yanno, you're like a petulant 11 year old. Our gov't has given itself the right to tax and collect and should we refuse to pay, to arrest us at gunpoint, try us in gov't courts and imprison us in gov't jails. If you can't admit there is force in all that, you are either lying or waaaay dimmer than I ever imagined.
BTW, I'm one of those people who understands the need for gov't taxes and the need to enforce those laws, even by force.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like taxes aren't forced? :Lol: Nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
Click to expand...


The IRS cannot enforce a law without force. 

Idiot, you can't make up definitions.


----------



## Papageorgio

SAYIT said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, you're like a petulant 11 year old. Our gov't has given itself the right to tax and collect and should we refuse to pay, to arrest us at gunpoint, try us in gov't courts and imprison us in gov't jails. If you can't admit there is force in all that, you are either lying or waaaay dimmer than I ever imagined.
> BTW, I'm one of those people who understands the need for gov't taxes and the need to enforce those laws, even by force.
Click to expand...


I believe he is much dimmer than originally thought.


----------



## Wry Catcher

SAYIT said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, you're like a petulant 11 year old. Our gov't has given itself the right to tax and collect and should we refuse to pay, to arrest us at gunpoint, try us in gov't courts and imprison us in gov't jails. If you can't admit there is force in all that, you are either lying or waaaay dimmer than I ever imagined.
> BTW, I'm one of those people who understands the need for gov't taxes and the need to enforce those laws, even by force.
Click to expand...


Keep up, I have acknowledged force, but the meaning of force does not include being arrested by gun point.  Most tax scofflaws are summoned to court and given their day to plead their case.  Due Process is not violence, nor physical force,  it is a process respected by government (except in Texas) and The People, as well as a constitutional right for all accused.

The force of law is not a force of violence, though those who resist will meet an opposite force many times more powerful.  The force you and other ideologues want to have acknowledged does not include due process and the right to a hearing, one heard by a trier of facts - either a judge but most often by citizens on a jury.

You want others to believe government is evil, notwithstanding your asserted belief that we are a nation of laws.  

Q.  Why push the issue and make force = to violence, something it is not in the issue before us.
A.  Cause you are a member of the fringe, a set unwilling to consider anything which questions the dogma you have been told to hold dear.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is force; why not become a better Angel on Earth who has not the need for the Expense of Government with social morals for free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
Click to expand...


Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.

To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?

It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.
> 
> To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?
> 
> It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.
Click to expand...


Dumb shit, not a libertarian. I never stated abuse, did I? You are the idiot that claimed it was not by force and it is. I'm not sure you know what force is. If I am driving and a cop comes up behind me with his lights on, he is forcing me to stop, no abuse. But it is still force.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.
> 
> To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?
> 
> It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb shit, not a libertarian. I never stated abuse, did I? You are the idiot that claimed it was not by force and it is. I'm not sure you know what force is. If I am driving and a cop comes up behind me with his lights on, he is forcing me to stop, no abuse. But it is still force.
Click to expand...


What ever.


----------



## LittleNipper

The rich should be only encouraged to pay their workers higher wages. The Civil War supposedly ended slavery...


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.
> 
> To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?
> 
> It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb shit, not a libertarian. I never stated abuse, did I? You are the idiot that claimed it was not by force and it is. I'm not sure you know what force is. If I am driving and a cop comes up behind me with his lights on, he is forcing me to stop, no abuse. But it is still force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever.
Click to expand...


Collecting taxes is by force. If it wasn't less people would pay because unless it is forced people won't do it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Papageorgio said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.
> 
> To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?
> 
> It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb shit, not a libertarian. I never stated abuse, did I? You are the idiot that claimed it was not by force and it is. I'm not sure you know what force is. If I am driving and a cop comes up behind me with his lights on, he is forcing me to stop, no abuse. But it is still force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collecting taxes is by force. If it wasn't less people would pay because unless it is forced people won't do it.
Click to expand...


What ever.


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS cannot enforce a law without force.
> 
> Idiot, you can't make up definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, I didn't - go to a library (you do know what that is, don't you?) and look up types of force in a legal dictionary.
> 
> To enforce does include the word force, but not within the meaning which the fringe want others to believe and parrot.  Your parents likely forced you to eat vegetables, did that make them abusers?  Did they enforce rules, like pick up your socks or no dessert for you tonight?
> 
> It's no wonder the Libertarians can't win elections, reality and pragmatic decision making gets in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb shit, not a libertarian. I never stated abuse, did I? You are the idiot that claimed it was not by force and it is. I'm not sure you know what force is. If I am driving and a cop comes up behind me with his lights on, he is forcing me to stop, no abuse. But it is still force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collecting taxes is by force. If it wasn't less people would pay because unless it is forced people won't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever.
Click to expand...


When you are wrong, what ever is about all you can say.


----------



## thanatos144

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this will satisfy you but I've paid more in taxes than you have earned in your life. Feel better now?
Click to expand...

You don't know that.  Don't make assumptions. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this will satisfy you but I've paid more in taxes than you have earned in your life. Feel better now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know that.  Don't make assumptions.
Click to expand...


You mean like the a-hole who admonished me to "Stop making all of us pay your bills?" You mean assumptions like that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I couldn't afford it.  What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take.  Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.
> 
> A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation.  It has it's positives and it has it's negatives.  A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial.  It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


*No deduction.
*
What is your definition of deduction?


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.
> 
> Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not really.  But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you.  You seem to desperately need it.
> 
> Force:
> 
> the definition of force
> 
> Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument.  I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce
> [en-fawrs, -fohrs]
> Spell Syllables
> Synonyms Examples Word Origin
> verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
> 1.
> to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
> to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
> 2.
> *to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.*
> 3.
> to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
> The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
> 4.
> to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
> to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
> 5.
> to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
> He enforced his argument by adding details.
> 
> The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.
> 
> Thanks for being so funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word.  For example:  Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, you're like a petulant 11 year old. Our gov't has given itself the right to tax and collect and should we refuse to pay, to arrest us at gunpoint, try us in gov't courts and imprison us in gov't jails. If you can't admit there is force in all that, you are either lying or waaaay dimmer than I ever imagined.
> BTW, I'm one of those people who understands the need for gov't taxes and the need to enforce those laws, even by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep up, I have acknowledged force, but the meaning of force does not include being arrested by gun point.  Most tax scofflaws are summoned to court and given their day to plead their case.  Due Process is not violence, nor physical force,  it is a process respected by government (except in Texas) and The People, as well as a constitutional right for all accused.
> 
> The force of law is not a force of violence, though those who resist will meet an opposite force many times more powerful.  The force you and other ideologues want to have acknowledged does not include due process and the right to a hearing, one heard by a trier of facts - either a judge but most often by citizens on a jury.
> 
> You want others to believe government is evil, notwithstanding your asserted belief that we are a nation of laws.
> 
> Q.  Why push the issue and make force = to violence, something it is not in the issue before us.
> A.  Cause you are a member of the fringe, a set unwilling to consider anything which questions the dogma you have been told to hold dear.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by _force_; the social _Power_ to tax is clearly delegated.


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No deduction.
> *
> What is your definition of deduction?
Click to expand...

Means no deduction.  Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
> Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No deduction.
> *
> What is your definition of deduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means no deduction.  Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

*
 Means no breaks on taxes
*
Don't we normally tax business profit?


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he shouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No deduction.
> *
> What is your definition of deduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means no deduction.  Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Means no breaks on taxes
> *
> Don't we normally tax business profit?
Click to expand...

Simple things seem to escape retarded communists 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> No deduction.  Stop making all of us pay your bills.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No deduction.
> *
> What is your definition of deduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means no deduction.  Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Means no breaks on taxes
> *
> Don't we normally tax business profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple things seem to escape retarded communists
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


But enough about you.


----------



## danielpalos

why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.


How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

All you progressives need to stop stealing from my kids and grandkids

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


How are you going to manipulate people's behavior that way?


----------



## thanatos144

Soggy in NOLA said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to manipulate people's behavior that way?
Click to expand...

Your not. But we both know that is the point. To bad they don't 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.
Click to expand...



Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*

EFFECTIVE tax rates


----------



## Dad2three

Flash said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that is hidden in that chart is the reality of the payroll tax, the income tax, and the corporate tax.
> 
> The payroll tax is really not a tax at all in the strictest sense of the word because the money theoretically goes into a retirement fund that an individual can recoup.
> 
> The income tax, on the other hand, is a trillion dollars honest to goodness tax that is paid out mostly by the top wage earners.  50% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of income earners.  80% of the revenue comes from the top 20%.  About half the people in the country don't pay anything into the fund at all but yet they are the ones that gets the welfare payments, which makes that tax legalized stealing.
> 
> The corporate tax is actually a very cruel tax on all Americans.  Corporations really don't pay the tax.  They collect the revenue from the American people for the tax with their sale of goods and services and then pass it to the government as an expense of doing business.  Those taxes are hidden in the cost of food, fuel, goods, services and most of the things that we buy.  When you buy a box of cereal made by General Mills you are providing the revenue to pay General Mill's income tax.  The money comes out of your pocket.
Click to expand...


Weird, you mean the $3+ trillion "borrowed" the past 35 years as Reagan gutted the riches tax rates, didn't fund Gov't?

20 percent of the corporate income tax burden as falling on labor, *20 percent 
on the normal return to all capital, and 60 percent on the super normal returns to corporate equity (shareholders)*
.
Previously, we had treated the entire corporate income tax burden as
being borne by the total returns to all capital.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf


OVER HALF OF CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS GOES TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% IN THE US!!!


Top 25% pay 86% of the INCOME tax burden, yet "make' 70% of income. THAT'S unfair? lol


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Dad2three

Flash said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure
> 
> WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good reason not to vote for any big government Progressive, whether they be Democrat or Republican.
> 
> The Democrats promises to raise your taxes and they usually do it.
> 
> Republicans promises not to raise your taxes but they usually do it some way or another.  Reagan is a great example.
> 
> Good reason not to vote for anybody in either one of those big government parties,
Click to expand...



Perhaps stop electing guys who say "Gov't doesn't work" then gets elected and proves it? Hint that's the GOPers!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> 
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*
> 
> That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
> I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers?
> *
> Taxes were cut for everybody.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, ignore the evidence AND links


_*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where * Reaganomists *claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*

The Myths of Reaganomics


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> 
> 
> 
> *
> he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
Click to expand...



Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?  I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.
> 
> I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.
> 
> You don't and I find that insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The force of law is quite different than violence.  So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.
> 
> By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes our law "legitimate?"  Nothing that I can discern.
> 
> There's no distinction between force and violence.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORING THE FACT I BACKED UP MY POSIT, THE BOTTOM 50% OF US WENT FROM NEARLY 18% OF GDP IN INCOME  IN 1980 TO 11% BY 2012,  IS NOTED BUBBA!
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with whether our laws are "legitimate?"
Click to expand...


You didn't CLAIM that Bubba, you called me a liar to say the bottom 50% lost almost $5,000 PER FAMILY under Reaganomics. To put it exactly, the bottom 50% went from nearly 18% (1980) of ALL US income to 11% (2012)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:
> 
> If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?
> 
> Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?
Click to expand...



*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*


*



*

*
The top fifth of the population receives 66 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 10 percent of entitlement benefits).


The middle 60 percent of the population receives a little over 31 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 58 percent of entitlement benefits).


The bottom fifth receives just 2.8 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 32 percent of entitlement benefits)

The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.





*
*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities*


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
Click to expand...



lol, Yes China is waiting for the capital, lol


----------



## Dad2three

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
Click to expand...



*How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich*


Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. *"They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."*


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally? Lol! I've been saying this since Clinton and Congress allowed people to remortgage their homes at 125% over the worth. I saw 2008 coming in the mid 90's.
Click to expand...


SURE you did Bubs


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a* dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *





















*FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your reaction to me telling you to calm down is to tell me to calm down? Er......
> 
> I don't understand your last sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, telling me how I feel is stupid, you obviously don't know.  Maybe instead of talking about feelings we could stay on content.
> 
> How is it you grasp bigotry over race or sex, but not your own bigotry based on wealth envy?  You obviously know as much about what rich people think as you know about how I feel, yet you insist on informing us on both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your mind on content is going off and trying to label everyone you don't agree with as a Marxist. Of give me a break. I'm tired of this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace "don't agree with" with "who endlessly spews Marxist rhetoric" and you're getting it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me sir, could you tell me the way to the ignore button?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you keep pumping class warfare claiming the rich want the poor to stay poor and don't get the connection between that and marxism?  Seriously?
Click to expand...



The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. 
*

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."*

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. *The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.*




MARXIST HUH? LOL
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz3jqnItW54
How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
Click to expand...



AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol


*Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*



*By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]

*The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.

Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity. *

The capital gains rate increased to 20 percent at the beginning of 2013, and top earners will pay an even higher rate because of a surcharge to help pay for Obamacare. Still, the rate remains far lower than the top income tax rate, even as inequality in America is now comparable to countries like Pakistan and the Ivory Coast


Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds


----------



## Dad2three

As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.


Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties




Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
Click to expand...


"*the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do."*


----------



## sealybobo

Dad2three said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich*
> 
> 
> Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.
> 
> "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. *"They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."*
> 
> 
> How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

How did the 1% convince 49% of the 99% to vote GOP?  God, gays, guns racism and lies is how. 

And the lotto mentality.

The Lottery Mentality - NYTimes.com

Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz. This isn’t the set-up for some sort of politically incorrect Catskills stand-up joke circa 1960. It is the takeaway from a remarkable study by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely on how Americans think about income inequality.

The right likes to argue that income inequality as an issue doesn’t win elections because Americans don’t begrudge the rich so much as they want to join them. 

Americans are mistaken about income inequality because of national self-confidence and the lottery effect.

By national self-confidence, I mean the widespread conviction that the American way is probably right because all those other ways don’t seem to work out so well. This is a wonderful national quality and one of the reasons America has such resilience. But confidence in the American way can make it hard for the country as a whole to recognize when things aren’t working.

Take, for instance, the health care debate, when a politically effective criticism of what has come to be known as Obamacare was to argue that it would destroy the “best” health care system in the world. Mary Meeker, a Silicon Valley guru of impeccably capitalist and American credentials debunked that idea in her recent USA, Inc. presentation, in which she pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”

Aside from faith in American national excellence, the other main reason Americans seem so unperturbed by the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else is what I like to call the lottery effect. Buying lottery tickets is clearly an irrational act -- the odds are hugely stacked against us. But many millions of us do, because we see the powerful evidence that an ordinary person, someone just like us whose only qualifying act was to buy a ticket, wins our favorite lottery every week.

For many Americans, the nation’s rowdy form of capitalism is a lottery that has similarly bestowed fabulous rewards on the Everyman. The current leading exemplar of self-made billions is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and he may soon be outstripped by the even more instant cyber-star Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon.

But the problem with lotteries is that there are only a few winners. That is the story the numbers tell us about American capitalism today -- and unless that underlying reality changes, at some point all those folks who think they already live in Sweden will realize they live in a winner-take-all society, and that most of us aren’t winning.


----------



## bedowin62

YAWN
 under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer


----------



## sealybobo

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
Click to expand...

See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!

That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.


----------



## bedowin62

the more a brainwashed leftard posts; the less he's actually saying


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

 

the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services


great job leftard!!


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer


So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> the more a brainwashed leftard posts; the less he's actually saying


Uhuhuh a yuk yuk you dumb fuk.


----------



## bedowin62

the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch

income inequality grew

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Uncensored2008

Matthew said:


> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!



Yes, and Soros has you  monkeys trained to claim an Islamic Theocracy is "capitalist."



You fucktards amaze me. Stupidest creatures on the planet.


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services
> 
> 
> great job leftard!!
Click to expand...

Don't talk to me dummy.  I can't handle stupid.  I fuck stupid women but I don't talk to dumb bitches.  Seriously, get lost fool.


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
Click to expand...

 

it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Soros has you  monkeys trained to claim an Islamic Theocracy is "capitalist."
> 
> 
> 
> You fucktards amaze me. Stupidest creatures on the planet.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh the boogie man soros.  Everyone run!!!


----------



## bedowin62

under Progressives the very richest got richer and the very poorest got poorer; both AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA, than they were under Bush

libs are lo......................you know the rest


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
Click to expand...

I can't take you seriously stop replying to me.  You are a joke.  Either that or a rich liar and I doubt that.


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your plane goes straight to Somalia...That is the perfect place for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Soros has you  monkeys trained to claim an Islamic Theocracy is "capitalist."
> 
> 
> 
> You fucktards amaze me. Stupidest creatures on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhh the boogie man soros.  Everyone run!!!
Click to expand...

 


yes run; nobody wants to see you toss the old geezer's salad


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't take you seriously stop replying to me.  You are a joke.  Either that or a rich liar and I doubt that.
Click to expand...

 

what part isnt true loser/???????


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
Click to expand...



Yeah that is why the middle class has been destroyed since Reagan and was far better under more progressive tax policies.

Give it the fuck up!


----------



## bedowin62

poor moron sealybozo; having a problem accepting reality dummy???


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't take you seriously stop replying to me.  You are a joke.  Either that or a rich liar and I doubt that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what part isnt true loser/???????
Click to expand...


None of it fag!


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is why the middle class has been destroyed since Reagan and was far better under more progressive tax policies.
> 
> Give it the fuck up!
Click to expand...

 

still ranting about the long-dead guy???

 and i need to give it up idiot?????

lmao1


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't you a progressive then?  And why isn't that money trickling down like you said it was.  You are such an intellectually dishonest fool.  Piss off stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it WAS trickling down until progressive got in charge idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't take you seriously stop replying to me.  You are a joke.  Either that or a rich liar and I doubt that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what part isnt true loser/???????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of it fag!
Click to expand...

 


tsk tsk tsk

my my my'


left-wing nutjobs sure are getting angry!!


----------



## bedowin62

gosh and golly gee; it's so nice of you Prog idiots to "help" all the poor people your failed policies CREATED!!


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.

Then we can have high living standards!


----------



## bedowin62

IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION:

 did the richest get richer and the poorest get poorer under obama?

yes or no???


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
Click to expand...

 

you're telling me the Left has been irrelevant for the last 35 years?????


okey-doke idiot!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates



Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.






Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.

Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.

It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.


----------



## bedowin62

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

 mean ol dummies on the Right made me fail over and over!!!


lol


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> gosh and golly gee; it's so nice of you Prog idiots to "help" all the poor people your failed policies CREATED!!




I can agree that we gave out to much welfare but your ideas will destroy this country. You will gut a already sad infrastructure budget that is at its lowest since the early 1990's and destroy this countries ability to compete in science. Is that what you wish?? Instead of demanding accountability, you demand that we just go back to the 19th century and play a never ending cluster fuck.


----------



## bedowin62

did income inequality grow under obama/dems?


 it's a yes or no question


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
> 
> mean ol dummies on the Right made me fail over and over!!!
> 
> 
> lol




You extremist should never be allowed within a thousand feet of leadership with the idiocy you bring to the table.


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gosh and golly gee; it's so nice of you Prog idiots to "help" all the poor people your failed policies CREATED!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree that we gave out to much welfare but your ideas will destroy this country. You will gut a already sad infrastructure budget that is at its lowest since the early 1990's and destroy this countries ability to compete in science. Is that what you wish?? Instead of demanding accountability, you demand that we just go back to the 19th century and play a never ending cluster fuck.
Click to expand...

 

people whose cities and states totter on the brink of insolvency should avoid lectures on what will destroy what


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> did income inequality grow under obama/dems?
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question




IT has been growing since the early 80's...Free trade is a failure! The government has been supporting exploration, science and infrastructure investment since the dawn of civilization. How hard is this for you to understand?

Jefferson supported Lewis and Clark to the pacific.


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
> 
> mean ol dummies on the Right made me fail over and over!!!
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You extremist should never be allowed within a thousand feet of leadership with the idiocy you bring to the table.
Click to expand...

 


SIGH

 again did the richest get richer and the poorest get poorer on the Progressive watch?

yes or no?


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did income inequality grow under obama/dems?
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT has been growing since the early 80's...Free trade is a failure! The government has been supporting exploration, science and infrastructure investment since the dawn of civilization. How hard is this for you to understand?
Click to expand...

 

did it get WORSE under obama leftard??

 stop deflecting


----------



## bedowin62

ET TU HUFFPO???

LOL


*Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush*
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../*income*-*inequality*-*oba*...

Cached
Similar
The Huffington Post
Loading...
Apr 11, 2012 - President *Obama* may talk a big game about *economic* fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. There are lots of reasons to ...


----------



## bedowin62

*Income inequality grows four times faster under Obama than ...*
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/.../inco-s03.ht...

Cached
World Socialist Web Site
Loading...
Sep 3, 2013 - *Income inequality* grew four times faster in the first three years of the *Obama* administration than *under* Bush, according to figures published ...


my GOD EVEN THE REAL SOCIALISTS KNOW?


 why dont you o-bot losers have the integrity to admit the truth???


----------



## bedowin62

it's so easy to make these sissies cry and come unglued!!!


----------



## bedowin62

lemme guess; you went to fetch more graphs???


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Ohhhh the boogie man soros.  Everyone run!!!



Oh, the retard Silly Bonobo - everyone laugh. 

Somalia is an Islamic Theocracy, retard.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich*
> 
> 
> Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.
> 
> "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. *"They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."*
> 
> 
> How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did the 1% convince 49% of the 99% to vote GOP?  God, gays, guns racism and lies is how.
> 
> And the lotto mentality.
> 
> The Lottery Mentality - NYTimes.com
> 
> Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz. This isn’t the set-up for some sort of politically incorrect Catskills stand-up joke circa 1960. It is the takeaway from a remarkable study by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely on how Americans think about income inequality.
> 
> The right likes to argue that income inequality as an issue doesn’t win elections because Americans don’t begrudge the rich so much as they want to join them.
> 
> Americans are mistaken about income inequality because of national self-confidence and the lottery effect.
> 
> By national self-confidence, I mean the widespread conviction that the American way is probably right because all those other ways don’t seem to work out so well. This is a wonderful national quality and one of the reasons America has such resilience. But confidence in the American way can make it hard for the country as a whole to recognize when things aren’t working.
> 
> Take, for instance, the health care debate, when a politically effective criticism of what has come to be known as Obamacare was to argue that it would destroy the “best” health care system in the world. Mary Meeker, a Silicon Valley guru of impeccably capitalist and American credentials debunked that idea in her recent USA, Inc. presentation, in which she pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”
> 
> Aside from faith in American national excellence, the other main reason Americans seem so unperturbed by the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else is what I like to call the lottery effect. Buying lottery tickets is clearly an irrational act -- the odds are hugely stacked against us. But many millions of us do, because we see the powerful evidence that an ordinary person, someone just like us whose only qualifying act was to buy a ticket, wins our favorite lottery every week.
> 
> For many Americans, the nation’s rowdy form of capitalism is a lottery that has similarly bestowed fabulous rewards on the Everyman. The current leading exemplar of self-made billions is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and he may soon be outstripped by the even more instant cyber-star Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon.
> 
> But the problem with lotteries is that there are only a few winners. That is the story the numbers tell us about American capitalism today -- and unless that underlying reality changes, at some point all those folks who think they already live in Sweden will realize they live in a winner-take-all society, and that most of us aren’t winning.
Click to expand...


So all those Democrats that are part of the 1% are convincing people to vote for Republicans? 

As long as you are stuck on partisan bull shit, we will never find a solution.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
Click to expand...


*
"Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*


*lol*

*
EFFECTIVE tax rates














*


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh the boogie man soros.  Everyone run!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the retard Silly Bonobo - everyone laugh.
> 
> Somalia is an Islamic Theocracy, retard.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubs, like Honduras, the other libertarian paradise? Hint Somalia is a broken nation with a largely Muslim faith RAN BY WAR LORDS DUMMY!


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich*
> 
> 
> Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.
> 
> "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. *"They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."*
> 
> 
> How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did the 1% convince 49% of the 99% to vote GOP?  God, gays, guns racism and lies is how.
> 
> And the lotto mentality.
> 
> The Lottery Mentality - NYTimes.com
> 
> Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz. This isn’t the set-up for some sort of politically incorrect Catskills stand-up joke circa 1960. It is the takeaway from a remarkable study by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely on how Americans think about income inequality.
> 
> The right likes to argue that income inequality as an issue doesn’t win elections because Americans don’t begrudge the rich so much as they want to join them.
> 
> Americans are mistaken about income inequality because of national self-confidence and the lottery effect.
> 
> By national self-confidence, I mean the widespread conviction that the American way is probably right because all those other ways don’t seem to work out so well. This is a wonderful national quality and one of the reasons America has such resilience. But confidence in the American way can make it hard for the country as a whole to recognize when things aren’t working.
> 
> Take, for instance, the health care debate, when a politically effective criticism of what has come to be known as Obamacare was to argue that it would destroy the “best” health care system in the world. Mary Meeker, a Silicon Valley guru of impeccably capitalist and American credentials debunked that idea in her recent USA, Inc. presentation, in which she pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”
> 
> Aside from faith in American national excellence, the other main reason Americans seem so unperturbed by the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else is what I like to call the lottery effect. Buying lottery tickets is clearly an irrational act -- the odds are hugely stacked against us. But many millions of us do, because we see the powerful evidence that an ordinary person, someone just like us whose only qualifying act was to buy a ticket, wins our favorite lottery every week.
> 
> For many Americans, the nation’s rowdy form of capitalism is a lottery that has similarly bestowed fabulous rewards on the Everyman. The current leading exemplar of self-made billions is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and he may soon be outstripped by the even more instant cyber-star Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon.
> 
> But the problem with lotteries is that there are only a few winners. That is the story the numbers tell us about American capitalism today -- and unless that underlying reality changes, at some point all those folks who think they already live in Sweden will realize they live in a winner-take-all society, and that most of us aren’t winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all those Democrats that are part of the 1% are convincing people to vote for Republicans?
> 
> As long as you are stuck on partisan bull shit, we will never find a solution.
Click to expand...



It's CONservatives of both parties that is the problem!


----------



## ScienceRocks

The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???

Honestly.


----------



## 2aguy

Dad2three said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do."*
Click to expand...



Did you pay 1.94 million actual dollars in taxes………..?


----------



## 2aguy

Matthew said:


> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.




they already pay more…when you are paying 1.94 million dollars in taxes, far more than most people will ever pay their entire lives taxes, you are paying your fair share.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Matthew said:


> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.



They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?


----------



## 2aguy

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer




Yes…increase taxes and you know who gets rich…the politicians and their friends…….

Why is it that you guys want to give ever more tax money to the same people you say fucked up the country in the first place.

If you had a business manager and you found out that he had taken all the money you gave him to pay for the things you buy and to invest in your future….and then you found out that not only did he lose all of the money you gave him but he caused you to be 200,000 dollars in debt…what would you do?  Sure, you work harder to pay back the debt and rebuild your losses…..

But would you give another penny to the guy that got you in that position in the first place?

That is what all of you lefties are saying…..they fucked up, they don't spend the money on what they should….but we need to give them lots more money, on the off chance that this time they will actually do what we want them to do….

You lefties are just stupid…..


----------



## 2aguy

Matthew said:


> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.




They pay more for the infrastructure when they are paying 1.94 million dollars a year in taxes, as Mitt Romney did in 2011……and on top of that he is creating jobs and allowing other people to make money as well……...


----------



## 2aguy

sealybobo said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> To the rich its just a game. They want to pay less even if they pay more lobbying to accomplish more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because the rich Congressman writes the bill for,the rich.
> 
> Congress is the only ones that can change the lobbying rules. They can change the tax laws and they can change the way Wall St. Interacts with them. They won't do a damn thing. The reason, they need money to get re-elected. Who is going to vote against their best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did the politicians of yesterday pass the tax laws that have recently been repealed? Seems to me our government has been taken over the last 30 years. Politics has changed our government our country has been taken over by the rich. This country used to be for we the people now its for them the Rich. Glad you're finally starting to realize that. This started on Reagan's watch and yes even Clinton and Obama are owned. We all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich*
> 
> 
> Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.
> 
> "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. *"They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."*
> 
> 
> How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did the 1% convince 49% of the 99% to vote GOP?  God, gays, guns racism and lies is how.
> 
> And the lotto mentality.
> 
> The Lottery Mentality - NYTimes.com
> 
> Americans actually live in Russia, although they think they live in Sweden. And they would like to live on a kibbutz. This isn’t the set-up for some sort of politically incorrect Catskills stand-up joke circa 1960. It is the takeaway from a remarkable study by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely on how Americans think about income inequality.
> 
> The right likes to argue that income inequality as an issue doesn’t win elections because Americans don’t begrudge the rich so much as they want to join them.
> 
> Americans are mistaken about income inequality because of national self-confidence and the lottery effect.
> 
> By national self-confidence, I mean the widespread conviction that the American way is probably right because all those other ways don’t seem to work out so well. This is a wonderful national quality and one of the reasons America has such resilience. But confidence in the American way can make it hard for the country as a whole to recognize when things aren’t working.
> 
> Take, for instance, the health care debate, when a politically effective criticism of what has come to be known as Obamacare was to argue that it would destroy the “best” health care system in the world. Mary Meeker, a Silicon Valley guru of impeccably capitalist and American credentials debunked that idea in her recent USA, Inc. presentation, in which she pointed out that “U.S.A. per capita health care spending is 3x OECD average, yet the average life expectancy and a variety of health indicators in the U.S. fall below average. But if you spend way more than everyone else, shouldn’t your results (a.k.a. performance) be better than everyone else’s, or at least near the top?”
> 
> Aside from faith in American national excellence, the other main reason Americans seem so unperturbed by the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else is what I like to call the lottery effect. Buying lottery tickets is clearly an irrational act -- the odds are hugely stacked against us. But many millions of us do, because we see the powerful evidence that an ordinary person, someone just like us whose only qualifying act was to buy a ticket, wins our favorite lottery every week.
> 
> For many Americans, the nation’s rowdy form of capitalism is a lottery that has similarly bestowed fabulous rewards on the Everyman. The current leading exemplar of self-made billions is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and he may soon be outstripped by the even more instant cyber-star Andrew Mason, the founder of Groupon.
> 
> But the problem with lotteries is that there are only a few winners. That is the story the numbers tell us about American capitalism today -- and unless that underlying reality changes, at some point all those folks who think they already live in Sweden will realize they live in a winner-take-all society, and that most of us aren’t winning.
Click to expand...



The guy who wrote this is a moron…….people know that if they don't do drugs, go to jail, don't have kids they don't support they can make a good life for themselves and even do much better….until the government comes in and starts draining their resources through excessive taxation that just goes to make the politicians more wealthy and more powerful…..


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million actual dollars in taxes………..?
Click to expand...


Yeah, because it's NOT percentages that ECONOMISTS measure things by right? lol

Hint Romney would've paid 400% more 1932-1980!  What did the US do then?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?
Click to expand...


They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA) 


*Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*


*The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> under Progressive rule the richest got richer, and the poorest got poorer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes…increase taxes and you know who gets rich…the politicians and their friends…….
> 
> Why is it that you guys want to give ever more tax money to the same people you say fucked up the country in the first place.
> 
> If you had a business manager and you found out that he had taken all the money you gave him to pay for the things you buy and to invest in your future….and then you found out that not only did he lose all of the money you gave him but he caused you to be 200,000 dollars in debt…what would you do?  Sure, you work harder to pay back the debt and rebuild your losses…..
> 
> But would you give another penny to the guy that got you in that position in the first place?
> 
> That is what all of you lefties are saying…..they fucked up, they don't spend the money on what they should….but we need to give them lots more money, on the off chance that this time they will actually do what we want them to do….
> 
> You lefties are just stupid…..
Click to expand...



Ignorant, dishonest right wingers. Shocking


When Republicans Govern, Government is the Problem

When Republicans Govern, Government is the Problem

Clinton had US at 20% of GDP, Dubya gutted it to less than 15% (1950's levels)....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Sure Bubs, like Honduras, the other libertarian paradise? Hint Somalia is a broken nation with a largely Muslim faith RAN BY WAR LORDS DUMMY!



Islam is a religion started by a war lord - retard. This isn't 1993 - Somalia is run by Islamist Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, retard. While all of the factions of the Clinton era were Muslim dictators, the Al Qaeda backed Ahmed has held control since 2006. Somalia is a nation under Sharia, markets are regulated under Islamic Riba, the prohibition against Interest or appreciation of property.

To claim Somalia a "free market paradise" was one of the more stupid claims made by you Communists - but hey, you have zero integrity so you figured why not play on the ignorance of others. Sure, you're lying, but you're a leftist, you lie about everything.


----------



## Uncensored2008

2aguy said:


> Did you pay 1.94 million actual dollars in taxes………..?



Dumb2three? No, but he DID collect $30 thousand in actual welfare...


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
Click to expand...




Really? 

The *Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997* (Pub.L. 105–34, H.R. 2014, 111 Stat. 787, enacted August 5, 1997) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.


*Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families*


The top marginal long term capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%, *subject to certain phase-in rules*



The act permanently exempted from taxation the capital gains on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles


Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WHEN DID THE DOTCOM BUBBLE START TO BUST??? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should lower the top income tax rate to 33%, and raise the capital gains rate to 33% for any gains earned from investments held less than five years.  The rate for investment gains over five years should be 25%.  The capitals gains rate should be tied to the income tax rate, so lower income earners would still pay less regardless of whether the income was from wages or investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
Click to expand...



work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pay 1.94 million actual dollars in taxes………..?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three? No, but he DID collect $30 thousand in actual welfare...
Click to expand...


Says the libertarian Klown. Shocking NOT ON CON/LIBERTARIAN FREAK CAN POINT TO ONE EXAMPLE OF THEIR POLICY EVER WORKING? lol'


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Isn't the FAA funded through airline taxes? Doesn't a percentage of the ticket price go to the FAA? So aren't these "rich" you are so jealous of already paying by the amount they use them?

I know, you're just a greedy Communist shrieking "gimmee Gimmee GIMMEE," but do at least TRY and think every so often..


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, like Honduras, the other libertarian paradise? Hint Somalia is a broken nation with a largely Muslim faith RAN BY WAR LORDS DUMMY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is a religion started by a war lord - retard. This isn't 1993 - Somalia is run by Islamist Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, retard. While all of the factions of the Clinton era were Muslim dictators, the Al Qaeda backed Ahmed has held control since 2006. Somalia is a nation under Sharia, markets are regulated under Islamic Riba, the prohibition against Interest or appreciation of property.
> 
> To claim Somalia a "free market paradise" was one of the more stupid claims made by you Communists - but hey, you have zero integrity so you figured why not play on the ignorance of others. Sure, you're lying, but you're a leftist, you lie about everything.
Click to expand...


Talk about lack of integrity *shaking head*

Somalia is classified by the United Nations as a least developed country. Despite experiencing two decades of civil war, the country has maintained an informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfers from abroad, and telecommunications.


....According to the World Bank, Somalia's economy has suffered as a result of the state failure that accompanied the country's civil war*. Some economists, including libertarian Peter T. Leeson, have argued instead that state collapse has actually helped improve economic welfare, because the previous Somali state was predatory.*

Similarly, economists Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh argue that Somalia's economic performance, relative to other African states, has improved during the period of statelessness


Ersun Kurtulus states that Leeson and Powell, Ford and Nowrasteh's articles provide "the most unequivocal evidence to indicate that Somalia has been faring far better under anarchy than it did under Barre's regime". Kurtulus argues that these authors may provide a valid explanation of the situation in Somalia, but that "the argument appears to be* derived from a hypothesis which is rooted in a liberal conceptualisation of statehood rather than in a quantitative analysis which establishes a negative correlation between indicators of state predation and those of economic and social welfare"*


lol

Economy of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Says the libertarian Klown. Shocking NOT ON CON/LIBERTARIAN FREAK CAN POINT TO ONE EXAMPLE OF THEIR POLICY EVER WORKING? lol'



ROFL

Where do you think this robust economy that Obama is fucking came from? Not the stagflation of the Johnson through Carter era, where Keynesian idiocy reigned supreme. Richard Nixon was the most orthodox Keynesian of any president - with an economy in the shitter to prove it.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the FAA funded through airline taxes? Doesn't a percentage of the ticket price go to the FAA? So aren't these "rich" you are so jealous of already paying by the amount they use them?
> 
> I know, you're just a greedy Communist shrieking "gimmee Gimmee GIMMEE," but do at least TRY and think every so often..
Click to expand...


Think air fees pay for all airports? NOPE


Everyone who uses the air transportation system pays taxes to help cover nearly 75% of the costs of developing and running America's National Airspace System (NAS) and improving and maintaining public-use airports.


*In addition to this dedicated fund from all aviation users, about one-quarter of the costs for the air transportation system come from the General Fund*

FAA Funding Debate - Funding - AOPA


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, like Honduras, the other libertarian paradise? Hint Somalia is a broken nation with a largely Muslim faith RAN BY WAR LORDS DUMMY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is a religion started by a war lord - retard. This isn't 1993 - Somalia is run by Islamist Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, retard. While all of the factions of the Clinton era were Muslim dictators, the Al Qaeda backed Ahmed has held control since 2006. Somalia is a nation under Sharia, markets are regulated under Islamic Riba, the prohibition against Interest or appreciation of property.
> 
> To claim Somalia a "free market paradise" was one of the more stupid claims made by you Communists - but hey, you have zero integrity so you figured why not play on the ignorance of others. Sure, you're lying, but you're a leftist, you lie about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about lack of integrity *shaking head*
> 
> Somalia is classified by the United Nations as a least developed country. Despite experiencing two decades of civil war, the country has maintained an informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfers from abroad, and telecommunications.
> 
> 
> ....According to the World Bank, Somalia's economy has suffered as a result of the state failure that accompanied the country's civil war*. Some economists, including libertarian Peter T. Leeson, have argued instead that state collapse has actually helped improve economic welfare, because the previous Somali state was predatory.*
> 
> Similarly, economists Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh argue that Somalia's economic performance, relative to other African states, has improved during the period of statelessness
> 
> 
> Ersun Kurtulus states that Leeson and Powell, Ford and Nowrasteh's articles provide "the most unequivocal evidence to indicate that Somalia has been faring far better under anarchy than it did under Barre's regime". Kurtulus argues that these authors may provide a valid explanation of the situation in Somalia, but that "the argument appears to be* derived from a hypothesis which is rooted in a liberal conceptualisation of statehood rather than in a quantitative analysis which establishes a negative correlation between indicators of state predation and those of economic and social welfare"*
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Economy of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Again retard, this isn't 1993. Somalia is an Islamic dictatorship under Sharia.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the libertarian Klown. Shocking NOT ON CON/LIBERTARIAN FREAK CAN POINT TO ONE EXAMPLE OF THEIR POLICY EVER WORKING? lol'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Where do you think this robust economy that Obama is fucking came from? Not the stagflation of the Johnson through Carter era, where Keynesian idiocy reigned supreme. Richard Nixon was the most orthodox Keynesian of any president - with an economy in the shitter to prove it.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, it was Ronnie's 18 year miracle? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, like Honduras, the other libertarian paradise? Hint Somalia is a broken nation with a largely Muslim faith RAN BY WAR LORDS DUMMY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is a religion started by a war lord - retard. This isn't 1993 - Somalia is run by Islamist Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, retard. While all of the factions of the Clinton era were Muslim dictators, the Al Qaeda backed Ahmed has held control since 2006. Somalia is a nation under Sharia, markets are regulated under Islamic Riba, the prohibition against Interest or appreciation of property.
> 
> To claim Somalia a "free market paradise" was one of the more stupid claims made by you Communists - but hey, you have zero integrity so you figured why not play on the ignorance of others. Sure, you're lying, but you're a leftist, you lie about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about lack of integrity *shaking head*
> 
> Somalia is classified by the United Nations as a least developed country. Despite experiencing two decades of civil war, the country has maintained an informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfers from abroad, and telecommunications.
> 
> 
> ....According to the World Bank, Somalia's economy has suffered as a result of the state failure that accompanied the country's civil war*. Some economists, including libertarian Peter T. Leeson, have argued instead that state collapse has actually helped improve economic welfare, because the previous Somali state was predatory.*
> 
> Similarly, economists Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh argue that Somalia's economic performance, relative to other African states, has improved during the period of statelessness
> 
> 
> Ersun Kurtulus states that Leeson and Powell, Ford and Nowrasteh's articles provide "the most unequivocal evidence to indicate that Somalia has been faring far better under anarchy than it did under Barre's regime". Kurtulus argues that these authors may provide a valid explanation of the situation in Somalia, but that "the argument appears to be* derived from a hypothesis which is rooted in a liberal conceptualisation of statehood rather than in a quantitative analysis which establishes a negative correlation between indicators of state predation and those of economic and social welfare"*
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Economy of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again retard, this isn't 1993. Somalia is an Islamic dictatorship under Sharia.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, sure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*
> 
> That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
> I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers?
> *
> Taxes were cut for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, ignore the evidence AND links
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where * Reaganomists *claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
Click to expand...


I love when liberal idiots use Mises as a source. 

*It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*

Still wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax
> *
> Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
> That's awful!
> What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
Click to expand...

*
Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
*
I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Think air fees pay for all airports? NOPE



Ah, lying again.



You have zero integrity - not a shred.

You could actually BE George Soros.

Or Satan.

But I repeat myself.



> Everyone who uses the air transportation system pays taxes to help cover nearly 75% of the costs of developing and running America's National Airspace System (NAS) and improving and maintaining public-use airports.
> 
> 
> *In addition to this dedicated fund from all aviation users, about one-quarter of the costs for the air transportation system come from the General Fund*
> 
> FAA Funding Debate - Funding - AOPA



That nice, but the FAA itself is funded by airline taxes. Airport construction and security is not a function of the FAA.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!*
> 
> That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
> I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers?
> *
> Taxes were cut for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, ignore the evidence AND links
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where * Reaganomists *claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when liberal idiots use Mises as a source.
> 
> *It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined*
> 
> Still wrong.
Click to expand...



Yes, ignore both the Mises and the study I linked earlier, just stick with your OPINION based on right wing bullsh*t!

*The Reagan Fraud — and After*


Despite his bravado about having stopped the growth of state government, the actual story is that the California budget grew by 122 percent during his eight years as governor, not much of an improvement on the growth rate of 130 percent during the preceding two terms of free-spending liberal Pat Brown. The state bureaucracy increased during Reagan's administration from 158,000 to 192,000, a rise of nearly 22 percent — hardly squaring with Reagan's boast of having "stopped the bureaucracy cold."

...by the end of Reagan's eight years, state income taxes had nearly tripled, from a bite of $7.68 per $1000 of personal income to $19.48. During his administration, California rose in a ranking of the states from twentieth to thirteenth in personal income tax collection per capita, and it rose from fourth to first in per capita revenue from corporate income taxes.




;...As for deficits, _Slate's_ Timothy Noah puts the matter succinctly: "The deficit, which stood at $74 billion in Carter's final year, ballooned to $155 billion in Reagan's final year. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, 'Reagan taught us deficits don't matter.'"


*...During his eight years in office, Ronald Reagan increased federal spending by 53 percent, added a quarter of a million new civilian government employees, escalated the War on Drugs, created the "drug czar's office," and lowered the value of your 1980 dollar to 73 cents.*

The Reagan Fraud — and After


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties



 most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*

It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
Why is that?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!
> 
> RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility  of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)
> 
> 
> 
> *
> No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
Click to expand...



Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think air fees pay for all airports? NOPE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero integrity - not a shred.
> 
> You could actually BE George Soros.
> 
> Or Satan.
> 
> But I repeat myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who uses the air transportation system pays taxes to help cover nearly 75% of the costs of developing and running America's National Airspace System (NAS) and improving and maintaining public-use airports.
> 
> 
> *In addition to this dedicated fund from all aviation users, about one-quarter of the costs for the air transportation system come from the General Fund*
> 
> FAA Funding Debate - Funding - AOPA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That nice, but the FAA itself is funded by airline taxes. Airport construction and security is not a function of the FAA.
Click to expand...


Oh so it's NOT the entire FAA structure we should worry about, just they pay 75% of costs? lol

Dumbass!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
Click to expand...



Go figure it out Bubs? lol;


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%
> *
> Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???
Click to expand...


You don't think he raised the rates by 60%, do you?

I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
Click to expand...


Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
Click to expand...


*Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
*
Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
So were you lying before or are you just stupid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...


*The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — 
*
They paid nearly 40% of Federal Income Tax and received 23.9% of tax-expenditure benefits?
That's awful!
The bottom 20% received less than 3% of tax-expenditure benefits? While paying no income taxes?
That's even worse!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then all the investors would pull their money out of the market and ship it overseas or to some other tax reduced investment.  The capital gains tax is designed to bring in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourage investment.  Increase those taxes to 33% and watch the market crash and burn.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
Click to expand...

*
work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
*
What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Which is exactly what happens to most guys who live in their mommy's basement and rarely venture out.



So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?

Federal tax ÷ total income=?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what happens to most guys who live in their mommy's basement and rarely venture out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
Click to expand...


You never did tell what your total income was last year.


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Well when yo make nothing, you pay nothing.



It's the legal deductions that help you make nothing.

So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?

Federal tax ÷ total income=?


----------



## SAYIT

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
Click to expand...


For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Oh so it's NOT the entire FAA structure we should worry about, just they pay 75% of costs? lol
> 
> Dumbass!



Airport construction and security do not fall under the FAA, retard.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.



Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.



A flat tax would screw you. I'll prove it. 

What percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?

Federal tax ÷ total income=?


----------



## OnePercenter

gipper said:


> Maybe.
> 
> The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%.  Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.



Nobody, including you, pay tax rates.


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did income inequality grow under obama/dems?
> it's a yes or no question
> 
> 
> 
> IT has been growing since the early 80's...Free trade is a failure! The government has been supporting exploration, science and infrastructure investment since the dawn of civilization. How hard is this for you to understand? Jefferson supported Lewis and Clark to the pacific.
Click to expand...


Of course, in 15 of the past 23 years we've had Demo Presidents. So how do you explain their failure to right the ship you believe is listing?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax would screw you. I'll prove it.
> 
> What percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
Click to expand...

I dont care if it screws me, I just want it to screw those that are bitching about others not paying their fair share while they sit back and pay nothing.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax would never go through.
> The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
> Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax would screw you. I'll prove it.
> 
> What percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
Click to expand...


You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?


----------



## Muhammed

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.


I doubt that. What a "flat tax" would do is...


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.



One more time: The bottom 49% contribute NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

SAYIT said:


> You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?



Hey, this is the "telecommunications mogul" who doesn't know what a CLEC is..


----------



## SAYIT

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
Click to expand...


Both.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
Click to expand...


I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> I dont care if it screws me, I just want it to screw those that are bitching about others not paying their fair share while they sit back and pay nothing.



You don't care if something you support screws you? WOW!


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?



So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?

Federal tax ÷ total income=?


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"



They don't have any money.

If you want that to change;

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
Click to expand...

pretty personal question dont you think. And, if they answer less than 25%, you tell them it will screw them, if they answer more than 25%, you tell them they are lying.
 So tell me, what purpose does it serve for anyone to tell you anything?
 Personally, I think that if EVERYONE paid the same percentage, the over all percentage would be less than some already pay, the big losers would be the leaches on the bottom of the food chain.
 Im good with that.
 besides, how much is it worth percentage wise, not to have to itemize and work through a few hundred thousand pages of tax code.
 wouldnt take long before the tax rate could start to come down.
 Im all for a flat tax rate with no exceptions.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
Click to expand...

this is an idiot plan that would cost thousands of jobs and create a serious problem in this countries finances. and the free loaders still get a free ride.
again, everyone else paying is fine as long as its not you.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
Click to expand...


Lemme go look that up.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money...
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.
The claim to which I responded - as ridiculous as it was - is that the rich make greater use of our infrastructure than the poor. I simply pointed out that the poor pay NOTHING for it ... that they get a FREE RIDE on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax.


----------



## boedicca

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
Click to expand...



What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.

A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.   

Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.


----------



## SAYIT

boedicca said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.
> 
> A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.
> 
> Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
Click to expand...


Loony lefties like 1% have a broken gene. They cannot grasp the idea that businesses simply pass the cost of taxes - as they do sales taxes - on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Ironically, the same loony leftists whine incessantly that sales taxes are an unfair burden on the poor yet continue to bang the drum for higher biz taxes. Their stupidity is stupefying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
Click to expand...

*
Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*

Still lying about inflation.
*
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.*

Can't be done, and holding prices constant doesn't eliminate inflation, moron.
*
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
*
Can't prevent people from investing offshore.
*
-Make inversion illegal.
*
Same outcome when foreign firms buy US firms. You gonna prevent that too?


----------



## Vermonter

I keep reading where all those on the left believe taxing the rich is a good thing as it will "help the Middle Class".

Can someone please explain to me just how that works? I just don't seem to understand how the Government taking more money from the top group helps the middle group.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

boedicca said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.
> 
> A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.
> 
> Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
Click to expand...


*A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE? Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins. So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.*


His idiotic plan also involves giving corporations their wage expenses back as a refundable tax credit.
A grocery store with $1,000,000 in sales, $500,000 COGS, $100,000 in rent and $370,000 in wage expenses currently has a $30,000 profit.

He'd tax them $300,000 and at least double their wages to $740,000.
Then he'd give them back the $740,000.
So now we have $1,000,000 in sales, $600,000 in non-deductible expenses and $300,000 in taxes. $100,000 profit.
I wonder if I owned the store, could I raise my salary by $100,000 and get an extra $100,000 tax credit?
I guess I can pay my family members $100,000 each. No, I'd make it $200,000 each.
What could go wrong?


----------



## David_42

I'd be happy to offer my perspective. 
It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.








*"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."







AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:

Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.


Click to expand...

*


----------



## LeftofLeft

David_42 said:


> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think he raised the rates by 60%, do you?
> 
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
Click to expand...



Still want o play on the edge and NEVER bring ANYTHING to the discussion huh Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
Click to expand...


Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked


----------



## LeftofLeft

David_42 said:


> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
Click to expand...


If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
> I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think he raised the rates by 60%, do you?
> 
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still want o play on the edge and NEVER bring ANYTHING to the discussion huh Bubs?
Click to expand...


Still making claims without showing the tax rates? Why is that?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
Click to expand...



Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol


----------



## David_42

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
Click to expand...

Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
Click to expand...


Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
Click to expand...


You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
Click to expand...

Disastrous trade policies haven't helped anything..


----------



## LeftofLeft

David_42 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?
Click to expand...


By your own stats, the US is the worst. That is what you posted.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
Click to expand...


lie. I'm shocked

*A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.

More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.

And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.

Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says




* A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *

The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."

*In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *

Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?


----------



## David_42

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your own stats, the US is the worst. That is what you posted.
Click to expand...

The US is not doing to well when it comes to child poverty, but many immigrants are close to the US, and always hear about the supposed opportunities.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
Click to expand...


Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits —
> *
> They paid nearly 40% of Federal Income Tax and received 23.9% of tax-expenditure benefits?
> That's awful!
> The bottom 20% received less than 3% of tax-expenditure benefits? While paying no income taxes?
> That's even worse!!!
Click to expand...



You MIGHT have something, IF the US collected only income taxes as revenues, since it's only about 45% of federal revenues, who give a fukkk?

*The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## ScienceRocks

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disastrous trade policies haven't helped anything..
Click to expand...



Its time to end free trade and raise tariffs 10% across the board on imports. This is the only way our workers can be paid right.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Ronald Reagan thought this was a good idea.  When he pushed to have rates reduced to 28%, the capital gains rate was 28% also.  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
Click to expand...

Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
Click to expand...



Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did income inequality grow under obama/dems?
> it's a yes or no question
> 
> 
> 
> IT has been growing since the early 80's...Free trade is a failure! The government has been supporting exploration, science and infrastructure investment since the dawn of civilization. How hard is this for you to understand? Jefferson supported Lewis and Clark to the pacific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, in 15 of the past 23 years we've had Demo Presidents. So how do you explain their failure to right the ship you believe is listing?
Click to expand...



NO Prez is dictator, and GOP ideology trumpeted governing???


*Norquist Tax Pledge Is GOP Fixture On and Off Campaign Trail*


Prior to the November 2012 election, *238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Matthew said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disastrous trade policies haven't helped anything..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its time to end free trade and raise tariffs 10% across the board on imports. This is the only way our workers can be paid right.
Click to expand...


So who ultimately pays that 10% tax?  I'll give you a hint:  the food chain.


----------



## ScienceRocks

When the rich paid 60% in taxes during the 40's, 50s and 60's!

What did we have?
-Biggest middle class in world history!
-Best educational system on earth!
-Best innovation on earth. Want to the fucking moon and the internet was created!
-One parent could go to work and afford a house, car, wife and 3 children.
-Both parties supported infrastructure, science, r&d and education!
-A republican built the highways, formed nasa and cleaned up our air!

What do we have today??? What has cut, slash and burn done for America since 1975??? Destroyed this country and made us a peon for the super rich.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disastrous trade policies haven't helped anything..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its time to end free trade and raise tariffs 10% across the board on imports. This is the only way our workers can be paid right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who ultimately pays that 10% tax?  I'll give you a hint:  the food chain.
Click to expand...



That is why we make it here in America. Want jobs for all Americans? Well, little tommy is going to have to do production.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did income inequality grow under obama/dems?
> it's a yes or no question
> 
> 
> 
> IT has been growing since the early 80's...Free trade is a failure! The government has been supporting exploration, science and infrastructure investment since the dawn of civilization. How hard is this for you to understand? Jefferson supported Lewis and Clark to the pacific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, in 15 of the past 23 years we've had Demo Presidents. So how do you explain their failure to right the ship you believe is listing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO Prez is dictator, and GOP ideology trumpeted governing???
> 
> 
> *Norquist Tax Pledge Is GOP Fixture On and Off Campaign Trail*
> 
> 
> Prior to the November 2012 election, *238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
> 
> Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Click to expand...



Turned little Norquist supports cheap labor from Mexico!! Too most of these rich out sourcing bastards we Americans don't matter.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% contribute NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
Click to expand...



*So Gov't is and has been ran ONLY on income taxes huh? lol

SIXTY EIGHT MILLION FAMILIES* WENT FROM ALMOST 18% OF US INCOME IN 1980 TO 11% (ALMOST $5,000 LESS) TODAY, AVERAGES LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY. HOW MUCH SHOULD THEY PAY?





Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll prove it? You don't know what MP earned or paid in taxes, no idea how the flat tax would be structured and what would be the rate yet you can prove something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, what percentage of total income did you pay in federal tax for 2014?
> 
> Federal tax ÷ total income=?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty personal question dont you think. And, if they answer less than 25%, you tell them it will screw them, if they answer more than 25%, you tell them they are lying.
> So tell me, what purpose does it serve for anyone to tell you anything?
> Personally, I think that if EVERYONE paid the same percentage, the over all percentage would be less than some already pay, the big losers would be the leaches on the bottom of the food chain.
> Im good with that.
> besides, how much is it worth percentage wise, not to have to itemize and work through a few hundred thousand pages of tax code.
> wouldnt take long before the tax rate could start to come down.
> Im all for a flat tax rate with no exceptions.
Click to expand...


You are a plutocrats wet dream, know in depth knowledge needed, just "believe"

*HINT THE BOTTOM HALF OF US MAKE AN AVERAGE OF LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY!!!*


----------



## LeftofLeft

David_42 said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your own stats, the US is the worst. That is what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US is not doing to well when it comes to child poverty, but many immigrants are close to the US, and always hear about the supposed opportunities.
Click to expand...




Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
Click to expand...




Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
Click to expand...




Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
Click to expand...




Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
Click to expand...


Your headline needs to be corrected to align with your premise. You say poor and middle incomes are paying higher rates but high income earners are paying "lower taxes"???  The high income earners rates may only be 5.4 percent but it is adding up to greater than 70 percent of the taxes??

How can the high income earners be paying lower taxes (read "Total") when the study focuses on rates? Think instead of cutting and pasting.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Matthew said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disastrous trade policies haven't helped anything..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its time to end free trade and raise tariffs 10% across the board on imports. This is the only way our workers can be paid right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who ultimately pays that 10% tax?  I'll give you a hint:  the food chain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we make it here in America. Want jobs for all Americans? Well, little tommy is going to have to do production.
Click to expand...


10% would slow down the economy quite a bit, don't you think?  Your big screen would be 10% more, your imported car would be 10% more, and people would be generally buying less products regardless where they are made.  I mean after all, the reason for tariffs is to bring up prices closer to US manufactured goods.  When most Americans go shopping, they have a  budget that they can spend.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?



Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.


----------



## Dad2three

Vermonter said:


> I keep reading where all those on the left believe taxing the rich is a good thing as it will "help the Middle Class".
> 
> Can someone please explain to me just how that works? I just don't seem to understand how the Government taking more money from the top group helps the middle group.




HINT, TAXES ARE REDISTRIBUTION. Always has been. Used to be VERY progressive. Today, nope, today the redistribution went from the poor/middle class to the rich!


AS WE GUTTED THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES OF THE TOP 1%, THE DEBT BURDEN EXPLODED? Note ANYTHING about that?


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
Click to expand...



YES, IMMIGRANTS AREN'T TRYING TO GET INTO OTHER NATIONS RIGHT? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think he raised the rates by 60%, do you?
> 
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still want o play on the edge and NEVER bring ANYTHING to the discussion huh Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still making claims without showing the tax rates? Why is that?
Click to expand...



Which claim of mine required me to post a tax RATE Bubba? Oh right NOTHING. And yes, I'm really shy about giving links to back up my posits? Oh wait, no IT'S The opposite, conservatives have a hard time with that!!!!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
Click to expand...



AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?

*What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*



Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*

Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today


Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
Click to expand...


And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poorest got porer on Progressives' watch
> 
> income inequality grew
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years. Smaller government + globalism = corporations never being happy enough in America so they go get some asian monkey's!!! We can't make them happy!!! Not with globalism! We have to tariff then rule our own market.
> 
> Then we can have high living standards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dumbass,,,the middle class and our industry has been ripped apart and sent over sea's the past 35 years.
> *
> Quick, raise taxes, that always causes businesses to expand. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden on the "job creators" since 1932. Highest Corp profits in 40+ years. First time EVER labor costs to Corps below 50% of costs, but the FEAR of increasing taxes is stopping the "job creators"??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, higher taxes here are getting businesses to close foreign divisions and expand here.....oh, wait, that's not what's happening. Maybe we could increase corporate regulatory expenses? That should get them to increase the pay of their labor force, oh, wait, that wouldn't happen either.
Click to expand...


Perhaps TRY GOOD GOV'T POLICY versus the BS CONservatives have been pushing on US for 30+ years? Just an idea Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
Click to expand...



*The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*


Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each. 


*
In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. *That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% contribute NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *So Gov't is and has been ran ONLY on income taxes huh? lol
> 
> SIXTY EIGHT MILLION FAMILIES* WENT FROM ALMOST 18% OF US INCOME IN 1980 TO 11% (ALMOST $5,000 LESS) TODAY, AVERAGES LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY. HOW MUCH SHOULD THEY PAY?
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


Very disingenuous of you, Princess. The topic of this discussion is our federal infrastructure (interstate highways, federal courts and gov't, military, etc.). You know ... the stuff we who contribute to the US Treasury through income taxes pay for and the stuff those who don't pay federal income taxes don't pay for?


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your own stats, the US is the worst. That is what you posted.
Click to expand...



Nonsense


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
Click to expand...


Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
Click to expand...


*And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*

Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
$89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
$25,991 combined. Less than 29%.

The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
$367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.


----------



## ScienceRocks

eagle1462010 said:


>




Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
Click to expand...

So pass them on! If the economy is booming we can all afford it.

These are all arguments you guys have been making for 45 years. It's getting old. Bla bla


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> pretty personal question dont you think. And, if they answer less than 25%, you tell them it will screw them, if they answer more than 25%, you tell them they are lying.
> So tell me, what purpose does it serve for anyone to tell you anything?
> Personally, I think that if EVERYONE paid the same percentage, the over all percentage would be less than some already pay, the big losers would be the leaches on the bottom of the food chain.
> Im good with that.
> besides, how much is it worth percentage wise, not to have to itemize and work through a few hundred thousand pages of tax code.
> wouldnt take long before the tax rate could start to come down.
> Im all for a flat tax rate with no exceptions.



I'll help you. You currently pay 5%-8% of your total income in federal tax, and you want to raise it to 10%. How stupid are you?


----------



## SAYIT

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
Click to expand...




OnePercenter said:


> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.



Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were such a problem, why aren't immigrants clamoring to go to more socialist countries as opposed to US? Is the health of the country supposed to be measured by how its collective wealth is distributed or opportunity for individual wealth and prosperity? If child poverity was such a problem, why are immigrants crossing the border illegally to have children??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe has immigrants to, not just America. Because it's easier for someone impoverished in Mexico to get to America instead of taking a ship to Denmark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your own stats, the US is the worst. That is what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US is not doing to well when it comes to child poverty, but many immigrants are close to the US, and always hear about the supposed opportunities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *I*The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your headline needs to be corrected to align with your premise. You say poor and middle incomes are paying higher rates but high income earners are paying "lower taxes"???  The high income earners rates may only be 5.4 percent but it is adding up to greater than 70 percent of the taxes??
> 
> How can the high income earners be paying lower taxes (read "Total") when the study focuses on rates? Think instead of cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...


REALLY? THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE? lol

Don't get percentage huh? You MUST be a conservative *hint the top 10% make almost 50% of ALL US income (from 32% in 1980).....13 million FAMILIES versus 123+ million FAMILIES


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is an idiot plan that would cost thousands of jobs and create a serious problem in this countries finances. and the free loaders still get a free ride.
> again, everyone else paying is fine as long as its not you.
Click to expand...


Reducing businesses employee and tax/fee expense to 30% is bad?


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
Click to expand...

I can afford to pay more


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits —
> *
> They paid nearly 40% of Federal Income Tax and received 23.9% of tax-expenditure benefits?
> That's awful!
> The bottom 20% received less than 3% of tax-expenditure benefits? While paying no income taxes?
> That's even worse!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You MIGHT have something, IF the US collected only income taxes as revenues, since it's only about 45% of federal revenues, who give a fukkk?
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...


*You MIGHT have something, IF the US collected only income taxes as revenues
*
You're whining about tax-expenditures and now you want to bring in other sources of revenue? LOL!
I accept your surrender.


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
Click to expand...

I can afford to pay more


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Lemme go look that up.



It's 5% to 8%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *  It wasn't until later that everyone thought it to be such a great idea to reduce those rates.*
> 
> Reducing those rates was a great idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
Click to expand...


So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.

I'm glad you were able to admit your error.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
Click to expand...


Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Irrelevant.
> The claim to which I responded - as ridiculous as it was - is that the rich make greater use of our infrastructure than the poor. I simply pointed out that the poor pay NOTHING for it ... that they get a FREE RIDE on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax.



Not making enough income to pay living expenses is irrelevant?


----------



## eagle1462010

Matthew said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
Click to expand...

BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................

Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................

Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................

So..............LA LA LA LA................


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
Click to expand...


What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% contribute NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *So Gov't is and has been ran ONLY on income taxes huh? lol
> 
> SIXTY EIGHT MILLION FAMILIES* WENT FROM ALMOST 18% OF US INCOME IN 1980 TO 11% (ALMOST $5,000 LESS) TODAY, AVERAGES LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY. HOW MUCH SHOULD THEY PAY?
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very disingenuous of you, Princess. The topic of this discussion is our federal infrastructure (interstate highways, federal courts and gov't, military, etc.). You know ... the stuff we who contribute to the US Treasury through income taxes pay for and the stuff those who don't pay federal income taxes don't pay for?
Click to expand...


REALLY? SO PLEASE tell me what the $3+ trillion in trust funds from SS/Medicare was spent on the past 30+ years? IF ONLY income taxes pay for things (not even considering gas, excise, Biz, etc taxes)....


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


>




Your right wing projection noted Bubs


----------



## sealybobo

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
Click to expand...

For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.

NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.

I hate Republicans.


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.* And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
> 
> 
> Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass them on! If the economy is booming we can all afford it.
Click to expand...


Wait ... so now that you understand that biz taxes are treated by businesses as sales taxes - to be collected from the consumer and passed on to the gov't - and knowing that those taxes hit the poor disproportionately, you still want them? I'm good with that but you will have to stop whining about the disproportionality and must spank every loony leftist who continues to do so.
Dayam ... and all this time I thought you guys were concerned about the plight of the poor. Woo. My bad.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right wing projection noted Bubs
Click to expand...

So what's new with you on it anyway..................Break out your pom poms and shout TAX THE RICH, TAX THE RICH, TAX THE RICH...............Do you wear a skirt when you cheer that shit...................you drive business out of state and wonder why they leave your ass..........and then expect people to agree with your BS.................Not happening bubs.............


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
Click to expand...


MAKING UP YOUR OWN NUMBERS? I'm shocked (not really)

HINT TOP 1/10TH OF 1% EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IS NO WHERE NEAR 37% Bubs


But, as the table to the right illustrates, the* total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income. *




*IN A SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM??? LOL*

*Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%,
> *
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Bubs? You THAT ignorant you can't figure out increasing SS REVENUES by 60% (he "borrowed" to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich) IS a tax increase???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think he raised the rates by 60%, do you?
> 
> I'm interested in how much he increased SS rates. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still want o play on the edge and NEVER bring ANYTHING to the discussion huh Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still making claims without showing the tax rates? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which claim of mine required me to post a tax RATE Bubba? Oh right NOTHING. And yes, I'm really shy about giving links to back up my posits? Oh wait, no IT'S The opposite, conservatives have a hard time with that!!!!
Click to expand...

*
Which claim of mine required me to post a tax RATE Bubba?*

So he didn't raise the payroll rates. Thanks.


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
Click to expand...


Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.
> 
> A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.
> 
> Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
Click to expand...


With employee expenses and taxes currently being 50%-60% wouldn't that be a savings?

FYI: Nobody makes 2%-3% net profit. ALL corporations (even mine) are multi-tiered. The typical large grocery store chain has procurement, logistics, and transportation profits BEFORE the product hits the store which makes net closer to 20%.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich use more to the wear on our infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay more to maintain what they use???
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  How do they use more of our infrastructure than anybody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy more goods (roads), go on more vacations (FAA)
> 
> 
> *Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families*
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits —
> *
> They paid nearly 40% of Federal Income Tax and received 23.9% of tax-expenditure benefits?
> That's awful!
> The bottom 20% received less than 3% of tax-expenditure benefits? While paying no income taxes?
> That's even worse!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You MIGHT have something, IF the US collected only income taxes as revenues, since it's only about 45% of federal revenues, who give a fukkk?
> 
> *The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population*, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.
> 
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You MIGHT have something, IF the US collected only income taxes as revenues
> *
> You're whining about tax-expenditures and now you want to bring in other sources of revenue? LOL!
> I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...


Yep, BECAUSE the payroll trust funds weren't used ($3+ trillion) since Reaganomics to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich right?


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
Click to expand...



We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.

It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
Click to expand...

And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off. 
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/ac...Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research


----------



## boedicca

OnePercenter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.
> 
> A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.
> 
> Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With employee expenses and taxes currently being 50%-60% wouldn't that be a savings?
> 
> FYI: Nobody makes 2%-3% net profit. ALL corporations (even mine) are multi-tiered. The typical large grocery store chain has procurement, logistics, and transportation profits BEFORE the product hits the store which makes net closer to 20%.
Click to expand...



B'loney.  There are plenty of business which LOSE money, bub.

Whole Foods, which has Premium Pricing, last reported a 4% profit margin.

And without product hitting the stores, there are no profits as there is nothing to procure, "logistic" or transport, moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
Click to expand...


*The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
*
24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
Click to expand...



Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.

As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.

I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen; 	by Frederic Bastiat


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
Click to expand...

?...


----------



## boedicca

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
Click to expand...




But but but...because EQUALITY!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER Ronnie increased them and "simplified" the tax code according to you? lol
> 
> 
> *Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> *By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.* Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. […]
> 
> *The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends*, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income.
> 
> Hungerford’s findings are similar to a study he produced for the Congressional Research Service in 2011, which found that while income grew 25 percent from 1996 to 2006 for all Americans, it grew 74 percent for the top 1 percent and 96 percent for the top 0.1 percent.* That study also found that tax cuts on capital gains were the biggest driver of the disparity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
Click to expand...


Keep TRYING Bubba


Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes…he paid more than his fair share……did you pay 1.94 million in taxes asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass them on! If the economy is booming we can all afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so now that you understand that biz taxes are treated by businesses as sales taxes - to be collected from the consumer and passed on to the gov't - and knowing that those taxes hit the poor disproportionately, you still want them? I'm good with that but you will have to stop whining about the disproportionality and must spank every loony leftist who continues to do so.
> Dayam ... and all this time I thought you guys were concerned about the plight of the poor. Woo. My bad.
Click to expand...

What products are you referring to? Cable TV? The gov. Passed a law the major broadcasters have to provide free TV. So I bought an antenna now I get all the basics free.

What products are so important? 

You know what? I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you period kit for cat a back and forth over your stupid little questions. All this can be very easily regulated by a government that looks out for we the people and not the corporations over the people. And if you're talking about necessities like gas which even that isn't a necessity but electricity and health care and food companies can get tax breaks. I'd go into it but I doubt I'd make a dent so why bother. 

Dumb Republicans burn me out after awhile. I spent the 90's explaining this stuff. I've spent 35 years explaining. Yet here you are making the same circular BAD arguments you were making 35 years ago.

And when we explain you'll just move on to another right wing talking point. Eventually you'll circle the fuck around and make this bad argument again. I'm done.


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
Click to expand...

Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
Click to expand...



Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.

Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...

That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
LOL.
Ok, sure.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
Click to expand...



It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.
Click to expand...

And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.

Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.

You think so small.


----------



## bedowin62

you leave left-wing nutjobs alone for a few hours and they go full retard on ya!!


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.
Click to expand...


you complete idiot; if you divvied up the corporate compensation of every CEO across all the workers they'd get like a 38 cent raise

you think so small


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of *the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do.*
> 
> It's weird that they don't give the income levels for the "richest" or "middle class" in their claim.
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
> 
> 
> *
> In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. *That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
Click to expand...


*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.*

But what was their taxable income in 2009?


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
Click to expand...



MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)


IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!

Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...

"To explain why some nations are wealthy and others are poor, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson present a single hypothesis, as opposed to viewing this as a complex problem with many factors. This flies against the research Philip Tetlock presented in his book "Expert Political Judgment" (2005), in which he showed that pundits who espouse a "hedgehog" or single point of view predict the future with less than 50% accuracy, when "foxes" who consider many factors predict the future with greater than 50% accuracy. (For example, Acemoglu and Robinson predict that China's economy will soon crash like the Soviet economy collapsed.)

Acemoglu and Robinson argue that "inclusive institutions" create a virtuous circle that make nations flourish, and "extractive institutions" create a vicious circle that makes countries decline. "Inclusive institutions" share wealth and political power among many citizens. "Extractive institutions" are used by small elite groups to enslave large groups of people to provide wealth to the elite, and then the wealth is used to strengthen the elite and maintain their power. The authors believe that "extractive institutions" decline because the elites oppose "creative destruction" such as new technology because they fear that change will empower the underclass.

There is a grain of truth in this hypothesis. The fundamental paradox of ethics is that groups in which members act altruistically prosper when groups in which members act selfishly decline, yet within groups individuals who act selfishly are more successful than individuals who act altruistically.

A leader persuades members of a group to stop acting selfishly and instead work together for the common good. The leader must selfishly seek power to force everyone else to change their ways. In a country such as the United States, where institutions generally work, our recent presidents have been amiable. But in a country with great poverty, inequality, and injustice, a leader has to ruthlessly seek power and then use drastic measures to force people to change. Too often the leader then abuses power and the "vicious circle" Acemoglu and Robinson describe continues.

But sometimes multiple factors converge (or, more typically, a common enemy emerges) to get people to work together. If a leader can guide this change without selfishly seeking power, these "inclusive" institutions become permanent, and the "virtuous circle" Acemoglu and Robinson describe grows.

Perhaps I should give this book three stars for getting part of the story right. But I'm subtracting a star for the many factual errors, and I'm subtracting another star because the book is too long. It's one of these heavy books people buy to leave on their coffee tables to impress guests, but don't actually read.

Other reviews have pointed many mistakes. I'll limit this review to mistakes others haven't pointed out.

On page 433 the authors say that Europeans encountered "empty lands" in North America, in contrast to the wealthy and advanced civilizations of the Aztec and the Inca. Actually, North America had civilizations as wealthy and advanced as the Aztec and Inca, and by some measures more advanced than Europe. For example, Cahokia (near present day St. Louis) and the Northwest Coast (where Captain Cook's offer to trade knives for supplies was rejected because the natives made better knives).

The authors' stories about how the Spanish conquered the Aztec and Inca don't mention that they brought smallpox, or that the Inca were fighting a civil war at the time, or that the small (400-man) Spanish forces allied with rebellious neighboring nations to create 100,000-man armies to overthrow the empires.

The authors claim that American representative democracy was copied from the English. Actually, it was copied from the Iroquois, who developed representative government in the 14th century (which was much admired by Benjamin Franklin).

The authors use England as exemplary, especially the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that fostered "inclusive" political power and the Industrial Revolution that created "inclusive" economic institutions. IMHO, Dickens' London or Ireland in the 1840s looked much like Peru in the 16th century (which the authors present as the paradigm of "extractive").

Ancient Greece and Rome were slave-based economies that enabled an elite to advance the arts and sciences. The scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was led by wealthy aristocrats. Not all slave-owning elites are opposed to new ideas or change.

Anyone who thinks that "inclusive" political and economic institutions are unalloyed good ideas should read "Boomerang," by Michael Lewis, about what happened in Iceland, Ireland, Greece, and California when non-elites suddenly had access to capital (i.e., borrowing against their homes' inflated prices), and in California direct democracy (ballot measures) put government in the hands of non-elites.

And "inclusive" groups are always excluding other groups. The Mormons have some of the most inclusive institutions, e.g., they are the only non-governmental group in history that has built large dams and irrigations systems. They are extraordinarily successful, bolstering Acemoglu and Robinson's thesis. And Mitt Romney is making "creative destruction" a campaign issue. But the Mormons also exclude people, e.g., blacks weren't accepted until recently. "Inclusive" groups are only inclusive for the people in the group, i.e., "inclusive" groups have an "us vs. them" mentality. I suspect that even slave-owners had "inclusive institutions" to help other slave-owners.

Where "Why Nations Fail" really fails is in describing communist economies. Marxism is inclusive, taking power from the elites to benefit the masses of poor people. You'd expect Acemoglu and Robinson to write favorably about communism but they instead praise the worst aspects of communism and denigrate the best achievements.

Acemoglu and Robinson say that the Soviet Union had extraordinary economic growth from 1928 into the 1970s, and then the Soviet economy stagnated. The authors attribute the growth to Stalin's rapid industrialization, and attribute the decline to the impossibility of "creative destruction" in a communist economy. The authors use the official Soviet statistics, which are now considered to be highly inflated. Historians such as G.I. Khanin now say that the Soviet Union never had high economic growth. Acemoglu and Robinson suggest that Stalin killing millions of people in the 1928-1940 period contributed to economic growth (by moving resources from agriculture to industrialization) when Khanin says that the Soviet economy shrank 20% in 1928-1932 and again shrank in 1936-1940.

In any case, the Soviet Union had too much "creative destruction," not too little. Stalin destroyed agriculture to create industrial factories. World War II destroyed much of the country, forcing new construction in the post-war period. After 1975, when the Soviet economy had 0% growth most years, perhaps "creative destruction" had stopped. If so, are Acemoglu and Robinson saying that killing millions of people and destroying cities is good social and economic policy? IMHO, many factors contributed to the decline of the Soviet economy, not least of which is that Stalinism forced individuals into the most extreme selfish behavior, e.g., denouncing one's friends, neighbors, and even family, causing them to be tortured, exiled to Siberia, or executed, so that the denouncer curried favor from the powerful elites and got a little more food or something, and survived until someone denounced him or her.

The 22x growth of China between 1980 and 2010 (the fastest-growing economy in the world, in comparison the United States grew 2.2x in the same period) is ignored except for a little discussion at the end of the book about Deng Xiaoping's career. Vietnam's economy grew nearly as rapidly as China's, and is only mentioned as a "repressive and extractive" economy.

Cuba's economy grew 6x, the 7th fastest-growing economy in the world and the fastest growing economy outside of Asia (according to the National Geographic, January 2011, and I verified this growth by asking Cubans if they were six times better off than in 1980, plus looking at their houses, etc.). Cuba's "inclusive institutions" include universal healthcare and education, universal child nutrition, the elimination of class differences, active fights against racism and sexism (Cuba passed civil rights six years ahead of the United States), care for the environment, the lowest crime rate in Latin America, humanitarian assistance to other developing nations, etc. Yet the authors say only that Cuba (along with Vietnam and Hugo Chavez) is "repressive and extractive."

The Cuban revolution is an example of multiple factors coming together to effect change. In 1958 Batista was disliked by everyone in Cuba - the elites, the poor, the Americans, and the revolutionaries. Batista didn't even want to be president. He'd been happily retired in Tampa when Meyer Lansky installed him in the lucrative but thankless job of puppet president. IMHO, Fidel Castro came into power by being in the right place at the right time, as opposed to being the cunning, ruthless dictator typically portrayed in the American press. Because everyone agreed that the old system was bad (and those who disagreed with the new government had a short trip to Miami), Fidel had relatively little opposition to building the "inclusive institutions" that enabled fast economic growth and strong political support. Fidel stayed in power by uniting Cubans against a common enemy, the imperialist United States (i.e., the extractive United Fruit Company) . Now that Cubans' fear of the United States has weakened and the economy has suffered due to the international recession, the revolutionary government is losing support.

NPR's "Planet Money" did a series of stories about Haiti. One story followed a businessman's attempt to build a facility to put mangos into cardboard boxes so they wouldn't get bruised on the way to market. After two years his facility wasn't built because various people claimed to own the land, the deeds had been lost, and the villagers acted in their own selfish interests instead of seeing that selling unblemished mangoes would make everyone prosper. In contrast, in Cuba the government would have just built the facility in a few weeks. Acemoglu and Robinson talk about how a "strong central government" is needed before "inclusive institutions" can be fostered, but they fail to see that multiple factors are needed to create a strong central government with the "inclusive institutions" that limit the power of the elite."


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> 
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
> LOL.
> Ok, sure.
Click to expand...



It's sad you can't tell the difference between North and South Korea. The North embraces the foundation of your ideology, bub.


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the rich can't get a smaller ROI?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.
Click to expand...


good one leftard; what happens when you demand Kroger give their employees a raise?


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)
> 
> 
> IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!
> 
> Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol
Click to expand...



What Malt Liquor do you drink?  I want to buy the company's stock!


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
> LOL.
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't tell the difference between North and South Korea. The North embraces the foundation of your ideology, bub.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the difference, and I can't take anyone seriously who wants to compare democratic socialism to a theocratic dictatorship. Idiot.


----------



## bedowin62

look at this loon david42; long-winded rants that say nothing is what left-wingers do


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Still lying about inflation.
> *
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.*
> 
> Can't be done, and holding prices constant doesn't eliminate inflation, moron.
> *
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> *
> Can't prevent people from investing offshore.
> *
> -Make inversion illegal.
> *
> Same outcome when foreign firms buy US firms. You gonna prevent that too?



*Still lying about inflation.*

Based on minimum wage in 1970, name five items that haven't increased in price 12X, and I'll name five items that have.

*Can't be done, and holding prices constant doesn't eliminate inflation, moron.*

Inflation is caused by a rise in products and services.

*Can't prevent people from investing offshore.*

Were talking corporations. Unless you think corporations are people. 

*Same outcome when foreign firms buy US firms. You gonna prevent that too?*

Wrong. Inversion is used to eliminate tax bills owed to the people of the United States.


----------



## boedicca

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
> LOL.
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't tell the difference between North and South Korea. The North embraces the foundation of your ideology, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I know the difference, and I can't take anyone seriously who wants to compare democratic socialism to a theocratic dictatorship. Idiot.
Click to expand...


Owwwwwww....




















not.


----------



## bedowin62

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
> LOL.
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't tell the difference between North and South Korea. The North embraces the foundation of your ideology, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I know the difference, and I can't take anyone seriously who wants to compare democratic socialism to a theocratic dictatorship. Idiot.
Click to expand...


ur right leftard; socialism is worse; because we don't have and aren't in danger of having a theocratic dictatorship

false analogy
straw man


----------



## David_42

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences on your complete and utter historical illiteracy.
> 
> Here's some homework.  Get back to me when someone intelligent reads it out loud to you and explains the cause and effect relationships to you.  See you in 2037!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-F...r=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That books description claims south korea is an example of some sort of "free market"
> LOL.
> Ok, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad you can't tell the difference between North and South Korea. The North embraces the foundation of your ideology, bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I know the difference, and I can't take anyone seriously who wants to compare democratic socialism to a theocratic dictatorship. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Owwwwwww....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not.
Click to expand...

Keep spewing ignorant nonsense.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
Click to expand...



How much have we spent on wars and to keep the peace? Has it stopped wars? $19 trillion huh? lol


----------



## bedowin62

corporations are groups of people and no we cant prevent them from investing offshore; unless you want to go back a century or so leftard?


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's another concept our loony lefties just can't (or won't) grasp ... the fact that not all (or even most) biz owners (you know, those who collect biz taxes from consumers and pass them along to the gov't) are rich. To any sane biz owner, taxes are just another COGS to be figured into the price of their products and services but allow me to suggest that YOU establish a biz and give most (or even all) of YOUR proceeds to your employees, customers and the gov't. After all, that is why people start businesses, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you complete idiot; if you divvied up the corporate compensation of every CEO across all the workers they'd get like a 38 cent raise
> 
> you think so small
Click to expand...

What about all the other officers? My bro is just VP of hr for one fortune 500 company. Makes maybe a million with stock options and has a golden parachute.

And he has tons of people below him all make $500k.

You are wrong. The companies that made the most cuts during the bush recession paid the highest bonus'.

And you know what you got damn fool? The CEO and the VP's don't ever worry about their pay being passed on to the consumer. It is not a concern of theirs you god damn fool you broke ass idiot. Want to know what my brother says the first two rules of business are? Rule number one feed the generals first rule number two never forget rule number one


----------



## bedowin62

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet for 30+ years CONservatives/GOP policy has been written to benefit the plutocrat class over small Biz, go figure!
> 
> 
> 
> For 30 years we told them their policies would grow the gap between the rich and poor and they didn't care. They said let the free market decide.
> 
> NOW they acknowledge the gap and that its a problem, but they blame Democrats.
> 
> I hate Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, Princess! Not 10 minutes ago you posted your approval of biz taxes despite knowledge of the fact that they are treated as COGS and passed on to consumers, disproportionately hurting the poor just as sales taxes do. Now you are complaining about the income/wealth gap which is widened by the very biz taxes of which you just approved. The level of hypocrisy among this board's loony lefties is surpassed only by their monumental stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you complete idiot; if you divvied up the corporate compensation of every CEO across all the workers they'd get like a 38 cent raise
> 
> you think so small
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about all the other officers? My bro is just VP of hr for one fortune 500 company. Makes maybe a million with stock options and has a golden parachute.
> 
> And he has tons of people below him all make $500k.
> 
> You are wrong. The companies that made the most cuts during the bush recession paid the highest bonus'.
> 
> And you know what you got damn fool? The CEO and the VP's don't ever worry about their pay being passed on to the consumer. It is not a concern of theirs you god damn fool you broke ass idiot. Want to know what my brother says the first two rules of business are? Rule number one feed the generals first remember to never forget rule number one
Click to expand...



good one leftard. just how much of other people's money do you think belongs to you and people you want to pander to??


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See everyone?  I told you all that Republicans, if given the chance, would make the argument that a rich guy shouldn't pay any more taxes than a poor man.  I KNEW IT!
> 
> That doesn't work stupid.  And the guy who got rich didn't get rich in the utopia you dream of.  In fact he would have NEVER gotten rich under your system of fairness and equality.  You are a stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the richest got richer on your Progressive watch stupid.....................and they passed on their tax hikes to the poor in the form of higher prices for goods and services.   great job leftard!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass them on! If the economy is booming we can all afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait ... so now that you understand that biz taxes are treated by businesses as sales taxes - to be collected from the consumer and passed on to the gov't - and knowing that those taxes hit the poor disproportionately, you still want them? I'm good with that but you will have to stop whining about the disproportionality and must spank every loony leftist who continues to do so.
> Dayam ... and all this time I thought you guys were concerned about the plight of the poor. Woo. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What products are you referring to? Cable TV? The gov. Passed a law the major broadcasters have to provide free TV. So I bought an antenna now I get all the basics free. What products are so important?
Click to expand...


Dude ... ALL PRODUCTS & SERVICES. I don't care if you live in a cave, make your own clothes and eat roots and berries. If you purchase any products or services in America, you are paying the firm's COGS and their profit.
The higher the biz taxes, the higher the price you pay.
Get over it.



sealybobo said:


> Dumb Republicans burn me out after awhile. I spent the 90's explaining this stuff. I've spent 35 years explaining. Yet here you are making the same circular BAD arguments you were making 35 years ago...



Dude ... you clearly don't understand any of "this stuff." You could not have spent the 90s explaining that which you don't know.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)
> 
> 
> IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!
> 
> Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol
Click to expand...






We've averaged 18.1% since WWII................irregardless of tax rates..............If that is the average for that long.........Federal Spending over that amount is STUPIDITY unless you want the debt to tank us..............

Obama has added debt that is more than all the others combined before he leaves office..................Not to mention the debt ceiling was reached back in March and they are putting off that battle until the primaries..................Politics............

Finally we spend more than the 2nd highest GDP Nation in the world...........but we don't have a spending problem.

Yeah right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars and to keep the peace? Has it stopped wars? $19 trillion huh? lol
Click to expand...


Closer to like 15 trillion over 5 decades, and very little to show for it.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure it out Bubs? lol;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
Click to expand...



YOU LEFT THIS OUT BUBS


* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*

AND YOU AND THE CONS REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT THE BUFFETT TAX, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES (ABOVE THE $1 MILL)


----------



## OnePercenter

Vermonter said:


> I keep reading where all those on the left believe taxing the rich is a good thing as it will "help the Middle Class".
> 
> Can someone please explain to me just how that works? I just don't seem to understand how the Government taking more money from the top group helps the middle group.



The rich should pay the same percentage of federal tax/total income as the middle class, which we don't.

The middle class are more dependent on tax based services than the rich.


----------



## bedowin62

rich people this, corporations that.

oh teach me how to hate and be petty and jealous like you oh great and wise Progressives!!!


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LEFT THIS OUT BUBS
> 
> 
> * And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> AND YOU AND THE CONS REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT THE BUFFETT TAX, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES (ABOVE THE $1 MILL)
Click to expand...



So, let's lower the tax rate for the people making $50K to $100K.

See?  Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars and to keep the peace? Has it stopped wars? $19 trillion huh? lol
Click to expand...


What has America spent on the "War on Poverty?" Have we stopped poverty? 
Boy, you fell right into that one.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE? Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins. So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.*
> 
> 
> His idiotic plan also involves giving corporations their wage expenses back as a refundable tax credit.
> A grocery store with $1,000,000 in sales, $500,000 COGS, $100,000 in rent and $370,000 in wage expenses currently has a $30,000 profit.
> 
> He'd tax them $300,000 and at least double their wages to $740,000.
> Then he'd give them back the $740,000.
> So now we have $1,000,000 in sales, $600,000 in non-deductible expenses and $300,000 in taxes. $100,000 profit.
> I wonder if I owned the store, *could I raise my salary by $100,000 and get an extra $100,000 tax credit?
> I guess I can pay my family members $100,000 each. No, I'd make it $200,000 each.*
> What could go wrong?



You'd also be taxed on that money. You'd also spend that money in the economy which would also be taxed.


----------



## eagle1462010

Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
Click to expand...

Tariff a company that goes overseas. I work for a small competitor in my industry. We'd love to take over the big 2's business.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: The bottom 49% pay NOTHING towards our collective federal income tax burden yet have the same access to our infrastructure as those who do pay. How is that "fair?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have any money.
> 
> If you want that to change;
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of financially illiterate CRAP.
> 
> A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE?   Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins.   So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.   The neighborhoods most affected will be in POOR areas.
> 
> Your plan, quite ironically and likely intentionally, makes your Dreaded INEQUALITY worse.  But that is the aim of Socialism - to benefit The Very Rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE? Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins. So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.*
> 
> 
> His idiotic plan also involves giving corporations their wage expenses back as a refundable tax credit.
> A grocery store with $1,000,000 in sales, $500,000 COGS, $100,000 in rent and $370,000 in wage expenses currently has a $30,000 profit.
> 
> He'd tax them $300,000 and at least double their wages to $740,000.
> Then he'd give them back the $740,000.
> So now we have $1,000,000 in sales, $600,000 in non-deductible expenses and $300,000 in taxes. $100,000 profit.
> I wonder if I owned the store, could I raise my salary by $100,000 and get an extra $100,000 tax credit?
> I guess I can pay my family members $100,000 each. No, I'd make it $200,000 each.
> What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

Subsidize food. Tax GE blenders. So don't buy a $100 blender cheap ass. Go to ikea


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.



Since the feds return almost all if not more of the income tax's collected back to the States, don't some of the 'goodies' come from the feds?


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.


Bernie sounds wonderful.

Arent you worried about your own primaries? Who you like? None of them? I agree.


----------



## eagle1462010

Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.

While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait ... you're saying people pay taxes willingly, even eagerly, free from threat of draconian gov't sanctions enforced at gunpoint? Really?
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
Click to expand...


A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.  

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.  

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> rich people this, corporations that.
> 
> oh teach me how to hate and be petty and jealous like you oh great and wise Progressives!!!


Teach you how to value American workers? Impossible


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.


There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie sounds wonderful.
> 
> Arent you worried about your own primaries? Who you like? None of them? I agree.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you think he's wonderful...............


----------



## bedowin62

the middle class had it better when republicans ran things
the richest never had it so good as under Progressives

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)
> 
> 
> IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!
> 
> Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've averaged 18.1% since WWII................irregardless of tax rates..............If that is the average for that long.........Federal Spending over that amount is STUPIDITY unless you want the debt to tank us..............
> 
> Obama has added debt that is more than all the others combined before he leaves office..................Not to mention the debt ceiling was reached back in March and they are putting off that battle until the primaries..................Politics............
> 
> Finally we spend more than the 2nd highest GDP Nation in the world...........but we don't have a spending problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.
Click to expand...


Average since WW2? lol

HINT we created Medicare in the 1960's(Dubya/GOP created MORE Medicare expense without a single penny of funding in 2004 AND they can't negotiate prices!!!) AND Obamacares as well as Ronnie had US spending 22%+ of GDP? HMM

Clinton BALANCED the budget at 20% of GDP about 15 years ago?D UBYA gutted it to less than 15% of GDP AND PUT TWO WARS ON THE CREDIT CARD!


Ronnie tripled EVERY other US Prez and then Dubya doubled it. AND?


US ECONOMY IS LARGER THAN EU COMBINED GDP? WE SPEND MORE? lol

YES, TAX RATES CHANGED, BUT THE RICH SHIFTED THEIR BURDEN!


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
Click to expand...

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
Click to expand...

BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)
> 
> 
> IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!
> 
> Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've averaged 18.1% since WWII................irregardless of tax rates..............If that is the average for that long.........Federal Spending over that amount is STUPIDITY unless you want the debt to tank us..............
> 
> Obama has added debt that is more than all the others combined before he leaves office..................Not to mention the debt ceiling was reached back in March and they are putting off that battle until the primaries..................Politics............
> 
> Finally we spend more than the 2nd highest GDP Nation in the world...........but we don't have a spending problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Average since WW2? lol
> 
> HINT we created Medicare in the 1960's(Dubya/GOP created MORE Medicare expense without a single penny of funding in 2004 AND they can't negotiate prices!!!) AND Obamacares as well as Ronnie had US spending 22%+ of GDP? HMM
> 
> Clinton BALANCED the budget at 20% of GDP about 15 years ago?D UBYA gutted it to less than 15% of GDP AND PUT TWO WARS ON THE CREDIT CARD!
> 
> 
> Ronnie tripled EVERY other US Prez and then Dubya doubled it. AND?
> 
> 
> US ECONOMY IS LARGER THAN UE COMBINED GDP? WE SPEND MORE? lol
Click to expand...

You do understand what AVERAGE MEANS.................


----------



## bedowin62

under Progressive rule the very richest got richer, the poorest got poorer

both at an increased pace than was happening under Republicans


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars and to keep the peace? Has it stopped wars? $19 trillion huh? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closer to like 15 trillion over 5 decades, and very little to show for it.
Click to expand...


So spending money doesn't really mean ANYTHING in your original premise? Good, glad we agree


----------



## bedowin62

libs r losers who lie to themselves


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> the middle class had it better when republicans ran things
> the richest never had it so good as under Progressives
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves


You're lying to yourself. Mitch McConnell broke obstruction records. You'd have to have had your head buried these years to believe what you just said. You'd have to have forgotten the bush years and tea party years.

You'd have to be dumb or a liar.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

David_42 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
Click to expand...


Which was the exact sentiment of the left when Gingrich introduced Welfare Reform.  Turned out to be the exact opposite.  Welfare Reform was a great success because people who had limited alternatives chose to work instead of finding alternate ways to milk the system.  

On a personal note, I've witnessed several instances where welfare has deterred people from advancing themselves.  In fact one of them were my former tenants who I evicted because they didn't want to lose their SNAP's card benefits.  They chose SNAP's benefits to income that could have secured their apartment and lifestyle.  If there were no such thing as food stamps, they may have chosen increasing their household income and kept their apartment.  But no, now they have an eviction on their record and it will haunt them for any other apartment they apply for the next several years.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LEFT THIS OUT BUBS
> 
> 
> * And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> AND YOU AND THE CONS REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT THE BUFFETT TAX, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES (ABOVE THE $1 MILL)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's lower the tax rate for the people making $50K to $100K.
> 
> See?  Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
Click to expand...


Simple minds with simple solutions. Donald Trump that you?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.



A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As President, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
> 
> Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
> 
> Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
> 
> Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
> 
> Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
> 
> Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
> 
> Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
> 
> Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
> 
> Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
> 
> Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
> 
> Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
> 
> Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
> 
> Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As President, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars and to keep the peace? Has it stopped wars? $19 trillion huh? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has America spent on the "War on Poverty?" Have we stopped poverty?
> Boy, you fell right into that one.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubs, sure. Weird YOU can't use logic there Bubs


----------



## eagle1462010

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.
Click to expand...

Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
That has been said many times in this thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb2three, you're a lying Commie fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I realize you're just a Soros hate drone, but less that 10% of the shit you spew has any basis in fact.
> 
> Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent.
> 
> It isn't clever, it just fucking lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "Soros thinks it clever to graph tax cuts in dollars, rather than percent."*
> 
> 
> *lol*
> 
> *
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your charts show that the richest pay a higher rate than the middle class.
> So were you lying before or are you just stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lie. I'm shocked
> 
> *A "large proportion" of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a "significant proportion" of moderate-income taxpayers,* said the report, which defined moderate-income as taxpayers with taxable income below $100,000.
> 
> More specifically, roughly a quarter of all millionaires face a tax rate that is lower than the tax rate faced by 10 percent of the moderate-income taxpayers.
> 
> And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while the millionaires paid 30 percent.
> 
> Middle class pays higher tax rates than millionaires, Sen. Tammy Baldwin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A new study finding an "unfair," rich-poor balance in state and local taxes has been getting big traction on the Web this week. *
> 
> The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
> 
> *In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less*. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. *The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes. *
> 
> Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MAKING UP YOUR OWN NUMBERS? I'm shocked (not really)
> 
> HINT TOP 1/10TH OF 1% EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IS NO WHERE NEAR 37% Bubs
> 
> 
> But, as the table to the right illustrates, the* total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *IN A SUPPOSEDLY PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM??? LOL*
> 
> *Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports*
Click to expand...


*MAKING UP YOUR OWN NUMBERS?
*
Nope, used the numbers in your article, dipshit.
LOL!


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.




Without false premises, distortions and LIES, the right wingers would have NOTHING. Oh right, it's what they argue now!


----------



## boedicca

eagle1462010 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
> That has been said many times in this thread.
Click to expand...




But but but...because EQUALTY!

And simple means less opportunities for GRAFT.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
Click to expand...


I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and LIES, the right wingers would have NOTHING. Oh right, it's what they argue now!
Click to expand...

That's his platform..........and you guys think you are Robin N the hoods....................Your side is good at one thing..........Driving business away.................

I remember building a gas turbine plant in Mohave Arizona........Just across the border from Needles Liberalfornia..................during the Black outs............Do you know why it was built in Arizona........because the power plant said it would be a cold day in Hell when they would build it in California...............


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.



Weird, they left out Dubya/GOP's UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (where, by GOP LAW, the Gov't CAN'T negotiate with the pharmaceutical Comps, go figure!!!!)


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?



It goes to their survivors.


----------



## eagle1462010

boedicca said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
> That has been said many times in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But but but...because EQUALTY!
> 
> And simple means less opportunities for GRAFT.
Click to expand...

There afraid they will lose something to bitch about...................but but they will always find something else to whine about.......They always do...........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figure out the fake numbers your stupid source used? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?...
Click to expand...


24.7 / 19.3 = 1.2797927

Durr.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, they left out Dubya/GOP's UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (where, by GOP LAW, the Gov't CAN'T negotiate with the pharmaceutical Comps, go figure!!!!)
Click to expand...

You forget that the Democratic solution was for DOUBLE THE PRICE of Bushes plan................
We went to War with the votes from the Dems as well..................after 3,000 Americans died.................but you would have done what................Mr. Chamberland.............................Your side always wanted more back then, even when you got half of what you wanted...........

Then you took the money with Obamacare................So spare me your BS>


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.
Click to expand...

If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross-over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
Click to expand...



ACTUALLY, the Senate was GOP for 6 of Ronnie's years AND the LAW required Ronnie's signature Bubs

AND NO, YOU AREN'T GOING TO "RESCIND' A TAX AND MIDDLE CLASS, AS THE GOP REFUSAL TO FIGHT TO STOP THE TEMPORARY TAX CUT UNDER OBAMA. WEIRD THEY DIDN'T FIGHT FOR THAT RIGHT? lol 

Hint more going out than coming in? Wow, you mean the $3+ trillion in trust funds coming due? lol Who knew running up the credit cards would EVENTUALLY require funds to be paid back? IMAGINE if Ronnie didn't prove "deficits don't matter"?


HINT CHINA HAS TAKEN MONEY OUT OF US BONDS THE PAST COUPLE YEARS (THEY HAVE $13 TRILLION OF DEBT TO DEAL WITH, STOCK MARKET COLLAPSE, RUNAWAY "FREE MARKET" CAPITALISM THAT HAS DRAINED THEIR ECONOMY, LIKE THE US IN 2008


----------



## sealybobo

We made


eagle1462010 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
Click to expand...

Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare


----------



## boedicca

dblack said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.
Click to expand...



Because Simplicity doesn't provide the opportunities for GRAFT which Complexity does.


----------



## boedicca

sealybobo said:


> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
Click to expand...



I suggest you look up the increase in federal spending on an inflation adjusted basis, bub.

And then look up the ratio of federal spending that goes to entitlements.


----------



## Dad2three

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rich people this, corporations that.
> 
> oh teach me how to hate and be petty and jealous like you oh great and wise Progressives!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Teach you how to value American workers? Impossible
Click to expand...



It's the teachers, cops and DMV workers fault you know? NOT those "job creators" (in China/Mexico, etc) fault!


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
Click to expand...


lol, Hundreds of billions a year? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did lowering the capital gains rates work so well for Bill Clinton?  You know, the best economy in our lives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> B'loney.  There are plenty of business which LOSE money, bub.
> 
> Whole Foods, which has Premium Pricing, last reported a 4% profit margin.
> 
> And without product hitting the stores, there are no profits as there is nothing to procure, "logistic" or transport, moron.



Whole Foods has fifteen subsidiaries. Why don't you do the net profit math and get back to us.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking about yourself!!! you're the one kissing the rich mans ass over his own country.
> 
> 
> 
> BS.............I've stated that the tax system should be simplified....................Just to shut people like you up............You wouldn't be able to complain about loop holes.......................They'd be gone................
> 
> Our problem is we are spending more than we take in.................In to debt up to our asses...................and refuse to make the necessary cuts to ensure the dollars future and standard of living's future for the next generation.  How does devaluating the dollar help anyone....................
> 
> Raising taxes when the investors can haul ass to other countries isn't the right strategy as well.................They don't have to stay here and they are leaving..................taxing the shit out of them doesn't create the jobs to keep our middle class alive...................The examples of California and Detroit being prime examples.........................
> 
> So..............LA LA LA LA................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. MY GENERATION, bought into Reagan's BS putting things on the credit card AS he gutted revenues. Carter had US at nearly 20% of GDP, Ronnie cut it to 17%+. CLINTON GOT US back to 20% AND THEN DUBYA/GOP GUTTED IT TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP (KOREAN WAR LEVELS!!!)
> 
> 
> IT'S A REVENUE  PROBLEM FOR 30+ YEARS!!!
> 
> Conflating a state (MY STATE, CALI IS DOING GREAT AFTER KICKING THE GOP GUV OUT) with a city? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've averaged 18.1% since WWII................irregardless of tax rates..............If that is the average for that long.........Federal Spending over that amount is STUPIDITY unless you want the debt to tank us..............
> 
> Obama has added debt that is more than all the others combined before he leaves office..................Not to mention the debt ceiling was reached back in March and they are putting off that battle until the primaries..................Politics............
> 
> Finally we spend more than the 2nd highest GDP Nation in the world...........but we don't have a spending problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Average since WW2? lol
> 
> HINT we created Medicare in the 1960's(Dubya/GOP created MORE Medicare expense without a single penny of funding in 2004 AND they can't negotiate prices!!!) AND Obamacares as well as Ronnie had US spending 22%+ of GDP? HMM
> 
> Clinton BALANCED the budget at 20% of GDP about 15 years ago?D UBYA gutted it to less than 15% of GDP AND PUT TWO WARS ON THE CREDIT CARD!
> 
> 
> Ronnie tripled EVERY other US Prez and then Dubya doubled it. AND?
> 
> 
> US ECONOMY IS LARGER THAN UE COMBINED GDP? WE SPEND MORE? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand what AVERAGE MEANS.................
Click to expand...


Sure IF someones simple minded enough to use an average rate going back 70 years? Hmm. What was it when budgets WERE balanced and deficits didn't explode?


----------



## boedicca

OnePercenter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> B'loney.  There are plenty of business which LOSE money, bub.
> 
> Whole Foods, which has Premium Pricing, last reported a 4% profit margin.
> 
> And without product hitting the stores, there are no profits as there is nothing to procure, "logistic" or transport, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole Foods has fifteen subsidiaries. Why don't you do the net profit math and get back to us.
Click to expand...



Why don't you look at their consolidated financials and get back to us.


----------



## Dad2three

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the middle class had it better when republicans ran things
> the richest never had it so good as under Progressives
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying to yourself. Mitch McConnell broke obstruction records. You'd have to have had your head buried these years to believe what you just said. You'd have to have forgotten the bush years and tea party years.
> 
> You'd have to be dumb or a liar.
Click to expand...


"You'd have to be dumb or a liar."

You speak of 99% of right wing "media" and about 95% of GOPers/CONservatives


----------



## SAYIT

sealybobo said:


> Tariff a company that goes overseas. I work for a small competitor in my industry. We'd love to take over the big 2's business.



"Tariff a company that goes overseas." And you say you've been arguing with cons since the 1990s using silliness like that? Really? I would just like it noted that underneath all that loony leftist bluster and blunder there's a very creepy capitalist who would have our gov't tax his competitors so he can "take over the big 2's business." Like most loony leftists, BooBoo has the integrity of a rattlesnake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Still lying about inflation.
> *
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.*
> 
> Can't be done, and holding prices constant doesn't eliminate inflation, moron.
> *
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> *
> Can't prevent people from investing offshore.
> *
> -Make inversion illegal.
> *
> Same outcome when foreign firms buy US firms. You gonna prevent that too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Still lying about inflation.*
> 
> Based on minimum wage in 1970, name five items that haven't increased in price 12X, and I'll name five items that have.
> 
> *Can't be done, and holding prices constant doesn't eliminate inflation, moron.*
> 
> Inflation is caused by a rise in products and services.
> 
> *Can't prevent people from investing offshore.*
> 
> Were talking corporations. Unless you think corporations are people.
> 
> *Same outcome when foreign firms buy US firms. You gonna prevent that too?*
> 
> Wrong. Inversion is used to eliminate tax bills owed to the people of the United States.
Click to expand...



* Based on minimum wage in 1970, name five items that haven't increased in price 12X, and I'll name five items that have.
*
Or you could get the actual government stats for those prices since 1970?

*Inflation is caused by a rise in products and services.
*
That's hilarious! Have you taken any econ classes? Ever?

*Inflation* is defined as a sustained increase in the general level of prices for goods and services.

Inflation: What Is Inflation? | Investopedia

*Were talking corporations. Unless you think corporations are people.
*
Oh, so corporations can't invest overseas, but people can?

* Inversion is used to eliminate tax bills owed to the people of the United States.
*
If a US corporation holds $1 billion in offshore profits outside the US and it is bought by a foreign firm, how much do they owe to the US Treasury on that $1 billion?


----------



## OnePercenter

sealybobo said:


> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.



Walmart here in Vegas is closing most of their 40 24hour stores at midnight and re-open at 6 am, thus taking their lost revenue write-off, so no loss, except for the employees that get their pay cut.


----------



## dblack

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Simplicity doesn't provide the opportunities for GRAFT which Complexity does.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is, the grassroots people really could do this. But the tools in DC will never oblige. They have too much invested in the status-quo game of trading favors.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to offer my perspective.
> It is obvious that there is a problem that has been growing for decades, in regards to inequality, and it's not just in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Despite huge advancements in technology and productivity, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The real median income of male workers is $783 less than it was 42 years ago; while the real median income of female workers is over $1,300 less than it was in 2007. That is unacceptable and that has got to change."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've spent $19T on the War on Poverty, bub.
> 
> It's not a Coinkydink that the more we spend to fight poverty, the Richer the Socialist Cronies get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it has helped, without the war on poverty, the poor would be worse off.
> https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=0
> Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America
> Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute Closed Loop Logic Poppycock.
> 
> As we haven't tried real Free Market Capitalism for a very long time, you have no idea what the opportunity cost of excessive government has wrought.
> 
> I'll refer you to Bastiat, although it's rather optimistic of me to think you might grok him.
> 
> That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen;     by Frederic Bastiat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry that the facts suck, all around the world, with the beginning of capitalism in europe after the overthrow of feudalism, the regulation free capitalist society in America.. a "free market" failed, monopolies occurred, capitalists influenced the state to benefit themselves, child labor was rampant, seniors were fucked unless they had a family, wages were low, labor unions were attacked.. It has failed everywhere, and led to regulations, state intervention. The cost of excessive government? The war on poverty needed to happen, and must continue to happen, the poor would just be worse off without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was the exact sentiment of the left when Gingrich introduced Welfare Reform.  Turned out to be the exact opposite.  Welfare Reform was a great success because people who had limited alternatives chose to work instead of finding alternate ways to milk the system.
> 
> On a personal note, I've witnessed several instances where welfare has deterred people from advancing themselves.  In fact one of them were my former tenants who I evicted because they didn't want to lose their SNAP's card benefits.  They chose SNAP's benefits to income that could have secured their apartment and lifestyle.  If there were no such thing as food stamps, they may have chosen increasing their household income and kept their apartment.  But no, now they have an eviction on their record and it will haunt them for any other apartment they apply for the next several years.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing CRAP NOT based on reality. Shocking



*Summary*

The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996 replaced Aid for Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and had important implications for persons with disabilities and for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Various surveys since its enactment show that between 32 percent and 44 percent of TANF recipients of report having impairments or chronic health problems


.... Not surprisingly, surveys have consistently found that TANF recipients with disabilities were substantially less likely to be working than those without disabilities. Additionally, although most states have formal policies to exempt persons with disabilities from various requirements, studies of results in the states have consistently found that families with reported disabilities or health problems were sanctioned at a higher rate than were other families.

Disability, Welfare Reform, and Supplemental Security Income



*The Failure Of Welfare Reform Hits New Records*


The percentage of poor families with children, those meant to be the primary beneficiaries of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF, or welfare), who don’t receive benefits has reached a record high, according to a report from Legal Momentum.

*In 1996, just 28 percent of poor families with children missed out on the benefits. But that share has since soared, and in 2012 it hit a record of 74 percent. *


*
SNAP continues to do more to help those in poverty than welfare does. In 2011, five times as many families with children got food stamps than got TANF,* according to the Legal Momentum report. SNAP kept 5 million people out of poverty in 2012; public assistance did the same for just 641,000 people.



Legal Momentum also notes that those who do receive TANF are getting very little from it. The gap between the value of welfare benefits and what a family needs to live above the poverty line has also continued to grow since the mid-90s, reaching a record of 73 percent in 2012. *The median state benefit for a family of three is now $427, just 27 percent of the $1,591 poverty guideline. *That family won’t be able to meet market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in any state, and in 25 states welfare benefits cover less than half of rent. *The value of benefits has been eroding, and for 99 percent of recipients, they are now worth less than in 1996 when adjusted for inflation.*



The Failure Of Welfare Reform Hits New Records




When President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law, he didn't just end welfare as we knew it. For all practical purposes, it turned out, he brought an end to cash help of any kind for families with children in much of the country. While welfare reform was long ago declared a success in some quarters, it was deeply flawed from the beginning.* The recession has shown how seriously unprepared it left us for hard times.*





*Welfare reform also provided the states with nearly complete discretion over how to administer benefits.* Most states responded with gusto, reducing welfare rolls nationally by two-thirds in just a few years.

So when the Great Recession came along, the government safety net for families with children was in tatters. The United States was no more prepared for massive unemployment than New Orleans had been prepared for its levees to fail.


Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich -- Why welfare reform has failed


----------



## dblack

..................


----------



## OnePercenter

bedowin62 said:


> corporations are groups of people and no we cant prevent them from investing offshore; unless you want to go back a century or so leftard?



Corporations may be a group of people, but personal and corporate finances don't cross.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
> That has been said many times in this thread.
Click to expand...


Yes, WHY NOT A REGRESSIVE FLAT TAX the plutocrats would LOVE. Why should the hedge funders like Romney get all the benefits for the top 1/10th of 1%  right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A 30% tax on corporate REVENUE? Grocery stores operate on 2-3% profit margins. So, either they increase prices 30% to cover this tax burden, or they go out of business.*
> 
> 
> His idiotic plan also involves giving corporations their wage expenses back as a refundable tax credit.
> A grocery store with $1,000,000 in sales, $500,000 COGS, $100,000 in rent and $370,000 in wage expenses currently has a $30,000 profit.
> 
> He'd tax them $300,000 and at least double their wages to $740,000.
> Then he'd give them back the $740,000.
> So now we have $1,000,000 in sales, $600,000 in non-deductible expenses and $300,000 in taxes. $100,000 profit.
> I wonder if I owned the store, *could I raise my salary by $100,000 and get an extra $100,000 tax credit?
> I guess I can pay my family members $100,000 each. No, I'd make it $200,000 each.*
> What could go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd also be taxed on that money. You'd also spend that money in the economy which would also be taxed.
Click to expand...


*You'd also be taxed on that money.
*
So I get an extra $100,000 free, from the government and then I get taxed at less than 40% on my windfall?
And I pay all my family members $200,000 each, free money from the government, and they get taxed at less than 40%. Where do I sign up?


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and LIES, the right wingers would have NOTHING. Oh right, it's what they argue now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's his platform..........and you guys think you are Robin N the hoods....................Your side is good at one thing..........Driving business away.................
> 
> I remember building a gas turbine plant in Mohave Arizona........Just across the border from Needles Liberalfornia..................during the Black outs............Do you know why it was built in Arizona........because the power plant said it would be a cold day in Hell when they would build it in California...............
Click to expand...

\
Sure Bubba, sure. You mean when Dubya allowed the "free market" to hose Cali during the created energy crisis? Weird


I bet they said that too, the largest US economy in Cali, by FARRRR , LOL, WHAT are we doing wrong?


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Simplicity doesn't provide the opportunities for GRAFT which Complexity does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad thing is, the grassroots people really could do this. But the tools in DC will never oblige. They have too much invested in the status-quo game of trading favors.
Click to expand...


Why don't voters demand more?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?
> 
> *What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.* And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*
> 
> Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today
> 
> 
> Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The richest 1% pay an **effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%.** That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.
> *
> 24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 24.7 / 19.3 = 1.2797927
> 
> Durr.
Click to expand...



*And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
Click to expand...


*Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
*
When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, they left out Dubya/GOP's UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (where, by GOP LAW, the Gov't CAN'T negotiate with the pharmaceutical Comps, go figure!!!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forget that the Democratic solution was for DOUBLE THE PRICE of Bushes plan................
> We went to War with the votes from the Dems as well..................after 3,000 Americans died.................but you would have done what................Mr. Chamberland.............................Your side always wanted more back then, even when you got half of what you wanted...........
> 
> Then you took the money with Obamacare................So spare me your BS>
Click to expand...


Dems wanted to double it? LIAR

60% OF ems voted against Dubya's war of choice. Most of the rest were LIED to by the Bush admin.

Yep, ACA 100% FUNDED, unlike ANYTHING the GOP passes


3,000 died? Oh right from Afghanistan, what did Saddam have to do with it??? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)*
> 
> Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
> That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
> $89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
> $25,991 combined. Less than 29%.
> 
> The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
> His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
> His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
> $367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.
Click to expand...


*A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k*

By all means, explain further.
Which loopholes can reduce taxable income by $900,000?
Spell them out.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 48284
Click to expand...



YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol


Keep TRYING Bubba


Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
Click to expand...




Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It goes to their survivors.
Click to expand...


Only if their survivors are a spouse or children.  Other than that, it's money lost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?
> *
> What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?
> 
> 
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 48284
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
Click to expand...


*YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
*
It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
Click to expand...

*
Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
*
If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.


----------



## thanatos144

Mark Levin is right you can't love your kids and support progressivism since it destroys thier future for your gain 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 48284
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> *
> It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.
Click to expand...



NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE


YES, IF YOU ARE THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE? But sorry the capital gains tax "boom" reflected SHORT TERM PROFITS AT LOWER RATES THAT WERE PUSHED FORWARD



*Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves.*



*Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."* 
*
ANTI Tax *Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC _World News_ anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":



*Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes*. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, *but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.*

Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
Click to expand...


Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Mark Levin is right you can't love your kids and support progressivism since it destroys thier future for your gain
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Yeah, that's the problem with the hucksters like (the Moronic One) Levin, you morons buy into their crap. It WASN'T blowing up spending WHILE gutting tax revenues that hurt US under Reagan/Dubya, it WASN'T Ronnie/Dubya ignoring regulator warnings about the Banksters, it was policies that help society? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.
> 
> I'm glad you were able to admit your error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 48284
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> *
> It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE
> 
> 
> YES, IF YOU ARE THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE? But sorry the capital gains tax "boom" reflected SHORT TERM PROFITS AT LOWER RATES THAT WERE PUSHED FORWARD
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> ANTI Tax *Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC _World News_ anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":
> 
> 
> 
> *Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes*. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, *but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.*
> 
> Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange
Click to expand...

*
NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE*

Maybe the serious economists should look at the drop in capital gains revenue when the rate was hiked?
Maybe they can look at the increase in capital gains revenue when the rate was cut?
You can look at the chart I posted.
Let me know if the big numbers are too confusing.
I'm always glad to help stupid people like you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
Click to expand...


People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.


----------



## frigidweirdo




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


>



What tax breaks?
And where is tuition $600?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
Click to expand...



Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks

"A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "

"The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."

"The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."

"Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."

"The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."

Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Here's the report:

"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs. 
• Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
 • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.

 In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars. 

Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"


----------



## OnePercenter

sealybobo said:


> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.



Or lost all or most of their retirement due to irresponsible Republicans in 2008.


----------



## OnePercenter

eagle1462010 said:


> Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
> That has been said many times in this thread.



Not going to happen.


----------



## OnePercenter

dblack said:


> If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross-over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.



Because Republicans control Congress.


----------



## OnePercenter

sealybobo said:


> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare



Here's your answer. Five years we'll be balanced.


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 48284
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> 
> 
> Keep TRYING Bubba
> 
> 
> Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> The supply-side *theory *that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost*, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. *For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, *calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years* and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.
> 
> The Impact of Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol
> *
> It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE
> 
> 
> YES, IF YOU ARE THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE? But sorry the capital gains tax "boom" reflected SHORT TERM PROFITS AT LOWER RATES THAT WERE PUSHED FORWARD
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
> 
> ANTI Tax *Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC _World News_ anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":
> 
> 
> 
> *Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes*. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, *but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.*
> 
> Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE*
> 
> Maybe the serious economists should look at the drop in capital gains revenue when the rate was hiked?
> Maybe they can look at the increase in capital gains revenue when the rate was cut?
> You can look at the chart I posted.
> Let me know if the big numbers are too confusing.
> I'm always glad to help stupid people like you.
Click to expand...



LOW INFO RIGHT WINGERS *SHAKING HEAD*

*Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes*. *This is a well-known fact,* and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, *but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.*

Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, weird they didn't do it Pre SS right? You Gov't haters WOULD have something, IF it were true!


----------



## OnePercenter

boedicca said:


> Why don't you look at their consolidated financials and get back to us.



I've made my point, it's you that can't seem to focus.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you pay taxes to support your own way. Everyone pays taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
> BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross-over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.
Click to expand...



Like them agreeing with Obama's proposal from YEARS ago to take the top rate on Biz from 35% to 28% , get rid of loopholes and use the new revenues to fund infrastructure???? lol

Hint CONservatives/Libertarians WANT a dysfunctional Gov't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
Click to expand...


*"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*

That's not a tax break for the Waltons.

*Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
*
So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.

*
The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
*
That's not a tax break for Waltons.

*Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
*
End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, weird they didn't do it Pre SS right? You Gov't haters WOULD have something, IF it were true!
Click to expand...


Well, it's weird we don't do it now.
Instead of giving the government 12.4% of your income for your entire career.
Because that would make sense and shrink government.
I can see why a big government lover doesn't want that.
Smaller government and a better funded retirement, icky stuff. LOL!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
Click to expand...


*
"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*



True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> 
> SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, weird they didn't do it Pre SS right? You Gov't haters WOULD have something, IF it were true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's weird we don't do it now.
> Instead of giving the government 12.4% of your income for your entire career.
> Because that would make sense and shrink government.
> I can see why a big government lover doesn't want that.
> Smaller government and a better funded retirement, icky stuff. LOL!
Click to expand...


You mean in right wing world, where Gov't is bad but free markets being able to plunder US is good? Sorry, HUGE fail. History says so.  Better funded? lol




Perhaps YOU can FINALLY give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history in the US?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
Click to expand...


It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.
> *
> If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, weird they didn't do it Pre SS right? You Gov't haters WOULD have something, IF it were true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's weird we don't do it now.
> Instead of giving the government 12.4% of your income for your entire career.
> Because that would make sense and shrink government.
> I can see why a big government lover doesn't want that.
> Smaller government and a better funded retirement, icky stuff. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean in right wing world, where Gov't is bad but free markets being able to plunder US is good? Sorry, HUGE fail. History says so.  Better funded? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps YOU can FINALLY give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of policy in the US?
Click to expand...

*
 free markets being able to plunder US is good?
*
There, there, big government will tuck you in.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
Click to expand...



True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, weird they didn't do it Pre SS right? You Gov't haters WOULD have something, IF it were true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's weird we don't do it now.
> Instead of giving the government 12.4% of your income for your entire career.
> Because that would make sense and shrink government.
> I can see why a big government lover doesn't want that.
> Smaller government and a better funded retirement, icky stuff. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean in right wing world, where Gov't is bad but free markets being able to plunder US is good? Sorry, HUGE fail. History says so.  Better funded? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps YOU can FINALLY give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of policy in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> free markets being able to plunder US is good?
> *
> There, there, big government will tuck you in.
Click to expand...


At least until the "small Gov't" types get into a woman's reproduction right Bubs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
Click to expand...

*
True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
*
You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
That's awful!
Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
*
 why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*

Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
Click to expand...



Walmart pay their employees so little and they push for these benefits. If the law were you either work or you collect benefits, Walmart would be screwed. They'd have to pay employees more.


----------



## sealybobo

OnePercenter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you do what Ford and gm do you pay all the workers well enough to be able to afford to fix the economy. Maybe instead of CEO pay going up 600% you share some of those profits with the workers of America.
> 
> Walmart just gave all their employees a raise. That's gonna hurt profits and the Walton's but not consumers. If Walton charges too much Kroger and neither kick Walton's ass.
> 
> You think so small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart here in Vegas is closing most of their 40 24hour stores at midnight and re-open at 6 am, thus taking their lost revenue write-off, so no loss, except for the employees that get their pay cut.
Click to expand...

Bfd. I'd rather 5 make $20 you would rather ten make ten or even twenty make $5


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
Click to expand...

You'll get it back.

Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What trust funds do you speak of?  You mean Social Security?  Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off.  This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor.  All died under the age which they could collect Social Security.  What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
Click to expand...


*You'll get it back.
*
Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS"  BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
Click to expand...

Safer than the stock market.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms.   And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.
> 
> For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in.  Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.
> 
> This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional.  If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund.  After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
Click to expand...


If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
Click to expand...


Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress! 

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
Click to expand...



Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised


Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
Click to expand...


*Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*

Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.
> *
> When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
Click to expand...


If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What tax breaks?
> And where is tuition $600?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
Click to expand...


Why should government?  When did you liberals invite government to our dinner table? 

What goes on inside of a family is their business--not governments.  When government becomes more important than family members, you know how far off the road we've gotten.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
Click to expand...


*Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*

*Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*




“This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*


Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study


How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
Click to expand...



So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
Click to expand...



If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
Click to expand...


*tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
*
Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????

Outrageous!!!!!

Moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
Click to expand...


Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks
> 
> "A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "
> 
> "The report – _“Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family”_ – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."
> 
> "The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that _“a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,”_ according to ATF."
> 
> "Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."
> 
> "The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."
> 
> Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness
> 
> http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
> 
> Here's the report:
> 
> "Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
> • Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> • The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> 
> In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
> 
> Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.*
> 
> That's not a tax break for the Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
> *
> So what? I think corps should be able to write off 100% immediately.
> And accelerated depreciation only moves the deduction forward, the total deduction is the same.
> 
> *
> The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
> *
> That's not a tax break for Waltons.
> 
> *Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year
> *
> End food stamps now, stick it to the Waltons. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should government?  When did you liberals invite government to our dinner table?
> 
> What goes on inside of a family is their business--not governments.  When government becomes more important than family members, you know how far off the road we've gotten.
Click to expand...




* Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html#ixzz3jwbB3Fki

*Death, Taxes, and the American Founders*


Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."  Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality.  Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind."


*The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster *




*"*"There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."" *Adam Smith*


*Inherited wealth is based on the same logic as inherited monarchy*


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


BENDING the law they bought? Yep


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
Click to expand...



Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
Click to expand...

 why should your family benefit from money you earned? 
 its much more fair to give it to Toenailisha Johnston to feed her 20 babys and give her money to visit the baby daddies in jail.
spandex aint cheap you know.


----------



## dblack

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
Click to expand...

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
Click to expand...


Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
Click to expand...

 If you get rid of the exemptions then you have to go flat tax, some of us rely on those exemptions. But, if it looked like it was going that way I would make sure to protect my money from the taxes, there will always be a way.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
Click to expand...


Sure LIKE the GOP jumped on board with Obama's proposal of 28% Corp tax rate, down from 35% right? Oh yeah, he wants to get rid of loopholes and rebuild the infrastructure with the new revenues, CAN'T have that!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
Click to expand...

 What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.


----------



## boedicca

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's awful when the family of the founder of a great company does so well, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
Click to expand...



A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.


----------



## boedicca

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
Click to expand...


I don't find it perplexing at all.  History is replete with greedy envious people wanting and taking other people's money.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
Click to expand...


What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll get it back.
> 
> Most Americans could save but instead spend beyond their means and are in debt. This is a Republican talking point so don't argue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll get it back.
> *
> Unless you die early. Or the government decides to cut your benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, sure. ONE example of privatizing SS that HAS worked as promised, ANYWHERE? lol


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
Click to expand...



It's not at all preplexing to me that you find how other people make something of themselves to be perplexing.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
Click to expand...

 and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't find it perplexing at all.  History is replete with greedy envious people wanting and taking other people's money.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
Click to expand...


Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*


* Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
Click to expand...


SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates


----------



## dblack

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
Click to expand...


Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
Click to expand...

 Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor. 
 Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
Click to expand...

 do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?


----------



## boedicca

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
Click to expand...



Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
Click to expand...

 No, its ok, you can leave tax high, hell, you can RAISE tax and get rid of the mortgage deductions, Dont worry, the economy is way strong enough to handle the housing industry failure that would come.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
Click to expand...



You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be

Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
Click to expand...

 I think you make too much.
 there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
Click to expand...



You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
Click to expand...


Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
Click to expand...

 You really dont understand incentive do you.
 so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really dont understand incentive do you.
> so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.
Click to expand...



Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted
Click to expand...

 Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
 are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really dont understand incentive do you.
> so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?
Click to expand...

 I just dont understand how you can think you deserve someone elses money.
 bet you are a blast in a resturant, do you look around when you are done eating to pick out someone that looks like they make more than you, then have your bill brought to them so they can pay?


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Read more: Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
> are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.
Click to expand...


Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?

Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really dont understand incentive do you.
> so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just dont understand how you can think you deserve someone elses money.
> bet you are a blast in a resturant, do you look around when you are done eating to pick out someone that looks like they make more than you, then have your bill brought to them so they can pay?
Click to expand...


"logic" fail from the right again. Shocking

_We may have democracy_, or _we may have wealth_ concentrated in the hands of a few, _but we can't have both_.  *Louis Brandeis SCOTUS*


----------



## dblack

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
Click to expand...


Politics is the art of the possible. We won't get political consensus on cutting taxes. But we can get consensus on removing all the BS. And here's the thing - the BS is what enables higher taxes. As long as someone thinks they're getting a 'special' deal, they won't support changes to the tax structure. Nevermind that, overall, everyone is getting fucked more - the psychology of these "incentives" is such that most people will think that they're winning.

If we strip away all that crap, even if it's painful for a bit, we'll get real with what taxes are actually costing us - and then we'll get real support for cutting rates.


----------



## sealybobo

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't find it perplexing at all.  History is replete with greedy envious people wanting and taking other people's money.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Middle class Republicans really are that stupid.


----------



## thanatos144

Only progressive rich should pay more taxes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
Click to expand...


Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
> Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
> are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?
> 
> Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!
Click to expand...

so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
 Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money? 
 You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same. 
 Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you. 
 Sounds fair to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
Click to expand...


*Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
*
Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

*PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
*
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?
Click to expand...






*Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*

*Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be
> 
> Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
> are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?
> 
> Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
> Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money?
> You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same.
> Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you.
> Sounds fair to me.
Click to expand...



Don't understand taxes, by their very nature, ARE re-distributive? I'm not shocked


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make too much.
> there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
> are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?
> 
> Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
> Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money?
> You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same.
> Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you.
> Sounds fair to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand taxes, by their very nature, ARE re-distributive? I'm not shocked
Click to expand...

If I didn't understand that I wouldn't be asking how someone else deserves money from anothers paycheck.
 I don't think you understand how wrong that is. So I would suspect that you are collecting some type of assistance.
 What is that teaching your children, or do you pretend that you earn everything that you have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
Click to expand...

*
You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES*.

Who did that? How did he game the system?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really dont understand incentive do you.
> so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?
Click to expand...


If the federal tax rate was 0%, the government would collect 0 dollars. 

If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
Click to expand...



*Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses
*
Corporations get to deduct employee wages.
Perfectly legally. 
It's too bad whining doesn't pay, you'd be as rich as a Walton.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Click to expand...




*Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *

* Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*


*Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.* 


*Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*

*Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*


·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *



*The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*

Galveston | Strengthen Social Security


"The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*

Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well


In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*


Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Click to expand...



*The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*

*Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”


*Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*



The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.

*In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
Click to expand...


What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow? 

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches......... 

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
Click to expand...

*
the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*

Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
_
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
_
Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/fkmm45mfid/comedy-is-gold-in-tv-ear/

A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Click to expand...




YOU KEEP TRYING BUBS

*Retirement Benefits Are Generally Lower Under the Galveston Plan*



The Galveston plan does not provide any benefits for spouses or other dependents of retirees. Nor does it provide any redistribution from higher earners to lower earners. In addition, the Galveston Plan fails to provide an inflation-indexed annuity — participants can choose a combination of lump-sum payments or a variety of fixed annuities that do not increase with inflation (and thus that erode in value over the course of a beneficiary’s retirement years). Finally, the Galveston plan allows early withdrawal of account balances in several cases (such as serious illnesses or certain other problems), which reduces the ability of the plan as a whole to provide income for as long as beneficiaries live and thereby increases the plan’s costs. (This is one of the reasons that the tax rate is higher under the Galveston plan than under Social Security, even though the retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston plan.)

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
Click to expand...


There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> SOME rules have changed:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.
> 
> ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%
> 
> 
> WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers  TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really dont understand incentive do you.
> so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the federal tax rate was 0%, the government would collect 0 dollars.
> 
> If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?
Click to expand...


Weird you don't disagree. Who argues for a 100% tax rate Bubs? Hint want to know WHERE the curve is at, according to STUDIES? EFFECTIVE tax rates above 65%-70%..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...


* If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
*
Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
Click to expand...


RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
Click to expand...


Oh you prefer welfare. Got it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
Click to expand...


Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter where they were born or with how much to inherit, YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO THEIR MONEY
 Why cant you get that through your head.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
Click to expand...


What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Liberals are such petulant children.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*
> 
> Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
> _
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> _
> Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
> 
> And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
> 
> A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
> 
> A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
> 
> And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
> Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
Click to expand...



Weird, you start with  a LIE?

*"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."*


The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of  the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY

Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, *which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.*

*“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.*

The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted* “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.*”

Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better,* at least initially, *under the Alternate Plan.

..*..The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan*, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.

Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits.* When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.*

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, *ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.*

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
Click to expand...


And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
Click to expand...


Yep, TOTALLY different  objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
Click to expand...


Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*
> 
> Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
> _
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> _
> Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
> 
> And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
> 
> A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
> 
> A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
> 
> And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
> Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you start with  a LIE?
> 
> *"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."*
> 
> 
> The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of  the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
> 
> Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, *which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.*
> 
> *“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.*
> 
> The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted* “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.*”
> 
> Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better,* at least initially, *under the Alternate Plan.
> 
> ..*..The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan*, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
> 
> Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits.* When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.*
> 
> Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, *ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.*
> 
> “It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
Click to expand...



What the article is talking about is taking more out than you put in.  No private business could ever operate that way, yet, government does it all the time.  In the private market, it would be called bankruptcy.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
Click to expand...



Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
Click to expand...


Nope, same objective, it's just that IRA's teach you the right way to handle money and the rewards of doing so.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter where they were born or with how much to inherit, YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO THEIR MONEY
> Why cant you get that through your head.
Click to expand...



Right, silly me, I thought as a SOCIETY we could make laws that can, and ALWAYS has redistributed wealth?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
Click to expand...

You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
Click to expand...

NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
Click to expand...


Somebody in their family sure did.... they didn't pick it off a vine you little nitwit.  How old are you?

Sam Walton built an empire... and now his kids own it.  So fucking what?  Grow up.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I love these little participation trophy whineybabies who haven't the ability or the motivations to do shit and then sit around and bitch about successful people.

Useless little douchebags.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
Click to expand...

so, your dads sperm was faulty beyond the obvious that you show here?
 Not at all lucky for you.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
Click to expand...


Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
Click to expand...


Again, so what?  We're asking you what justification you have for taking somebody's legally obtained property?

Envy doesn't count...


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...


Broke? lol

PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, your dads sperm was faulty beyond the obvious that you show here?
> Not at all lucky for you.
Click to expand...


Yeah no shit... he's probably barely qualified to press a button that lowers the french fry basket at McDonalds.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, same objective, it's just that IRA's teach you the right way to handle money and the rewards of doing so.
Click to expand...



Until the market crashes, like under the conservatives 1920's crash that lost 90%+ of the market!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
Click to expand...

so its ok as long as the majority are stealing from the minority?
 I guess if I walk up to you with lets say, two other people and we decide that you should give us your money, that's ok? or would it have to be four other people.

as far as working hard, Im starting to think you never have, Otherwise you would understand what it means to have your income stolen.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
Click to expand...


Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.

You're such an idiot.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its ok as long as the majority are stealing from the minority?
> I guess if I walk up to you with lets say, two other people and we decide that you should give us your money, that's ok? or would it have to be four other people.
> 
> as far as working hard, Im starting to think you never have, Otherwise you would understand what it means to have your income stolen.
Click to expand...


Jesus... he's dumber than a bag of snot.  I wonder how old he is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
Click to expand...



Well your link didn't come out.  Not your fault, it's happened to me several times on this service. 

But here is a Wall Street piece that says most of the wealthy did not inherit their wealth (if the link comes out): 

The Decline of Inherited Money


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody in their family sure did.... they didn't pick it off a vine you little nitwit.  How old are you?
> 
> Sam Walton built an empire... and now his kids own it.  So fucking what?  Grow up.
Click to expand...




* Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





*Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *



*Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity?* If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, *equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.*


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
Click to expand...

You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
 you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
 what a welfare queen you must be.


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, so what?  We're asking you what justification you have for taking somebody's legally obtained property?
> 
> Envy doesn't count...
Click to expand...



_The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes_. Noah Webster

_The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments._ Adam Smith






*Early Americans were all too familiar with European Aristocracy and as they began to conceive this new nation they wanted a new idea based not on Aristocratic order but on shared political power. *For that to happen they believed there had to be relative equity in wealth among the citizens of America. There was a strong belief that inherited wealth would lead to a rising Aristocracy with wealthy families consolidating unfair political power. Both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, that great Conservative champion, found it impossible to accept that great wealth should be passed on from parent to child. Because of this they stood firm on a redistribution of wealth in the form of an inheritance tax. _



A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural._ Thomas Jefferson

_There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death._ Adam Smith

Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Then why is it completely omitted in the U.S. Constitution?  Oh, because you're full of shit.  And a quote from the leftwing nut site Daily Kos quoting a couple people's thoughts on the matter isn't policy.

Knock it off.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its ok as long as the majority are stealing from the minority?
> I guess if I walk up to you with lets say, two other people and we decide that you should give us your money, that's ok? or would it have to be four other people.
> 
> as far as working hard, Im starting to think you never have, Otherwise you would understand what it means to have your income stolen.
Click to expand...


You are SUPPOSED to outgrow that BS Ayn Rand crap by about 25 Bubs, what happened?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody in their family sure did.... they didn't pick it off a vine you little nitwit.  How old are you?
> 
> Sam Walton built an empire... and now his kids own it.  So fucking what?  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> 
> *Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity?* If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, *equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.*
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Thomas Jeffersons home? Hint it was no common worker shanty for the day.
evidently, good old TJ wanted to keep and spend what he earned. As would be the case for the rest of them too.
 an equitable distribution has to be linked to an equally equitable distribution of effort. Nobody sat on their ass and got a free ride back in the day.


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Then why is it completely omitted in the U.S. Constitution?  Oh, because you're full of shit.  And a quote from the leftwing nut site Daily Kos quoting a couple people's thoughts on the matter isn't policy.
> 
> Knock it off.




Got it, US GOV'T POLICY didn't matter right Bubs? lol


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its ok as long as the majority are stealing from the minority?
> I guess if I walk up to you with lets say, two other people and we decide that you should give us your money, that's ok? or would it have to be four other people.
> 
> as far as working hard, Im starting to think you never have, Otherwise you would understand what it means to have your income stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are SUPPOSED to outgrow that BS Ayn Rand crap by about 25 Bubs, what happened?
Click to expand...

Got a job and watched my earned income taken from me and given to somebody that refused to get a job?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*
> 
> Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
> _
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> _
> Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
> 
> And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
> 
> A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
> 
> A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
> 
> And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
> Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you start with  a LIE?
> 
> *"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."*
> 
> 
> The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of  the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
> 
> Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, *which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.*
> 
> *“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.*
> 
> The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted* “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.*”
> 
> Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better,* at least initially, *under the Alternate Plan.
> 
> ..*..The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan*, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
> 
> Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits.* When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.*
> 
> Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, *ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.*
> 
> “It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


*In a hypothetical calculation, Mr. Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.
*
Holy crap! You can get more than you made while you worked?
Does that ever happen under Social Security?

* But at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits.
*
A worker in the private program, who only made $25,000 a year can get almost as much as the maximum payout in Social Security? WOW!!!
I can see why you'd prefer the lower benefit amount.
Because you're a moron.


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
Click to expand...


Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
Click to expand...

Hey, it was government policy, doesn't that matter to you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
Click to expand...


Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.

I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well your link didn't come out.  Not your fault, it's happened to me several times on this service.
> 
> But here is a Wall Street piece that says most of the wealthy did not inherit their wealth (if the link comes out):
> 
> The Decline of Inherited Money
Click to expand...



It worked for me


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich



In real life, working hard only takes you so far. *Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start*. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400. -


The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
Click to expand...


Waaaahh.
I'm sorry your parents weren't successful and that you inherited the same. Maybe you should whine some more?


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody in their family sure did.... they didn't pick it off a vine you little nitwit.  How old are you?
> 
> Sam Walton built an empire... and now his kids own it.  So fucking what?  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> 
> *Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity?* If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy.  Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, *equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever seen Thomas Jeffersons home? Hint it was no common worker shanty for the day.
> evidently, good old TJ wanted to keep and spend what he earned. As would be the case for the rest of them too.
> an equitable distribution has to be linked to an equally equitable distribution of effort. Nobody sat on their ass and got a free ride back in the day.
Click to expand...


LOL, You Klowns and your lucky duckie welfare BS. Too funny


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And most weren't.  Most wealthy are self-made.  But in this discussion, it's irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't matter where or who you were born to.  It doesn't give the government anymore right to your money than your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought as a SOCIETY we get to create LAWS that decide that?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — *typically get a substantial head start.* So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, so what?  We're asking you what justification you have for taking somebody's legally obtained property?
> 
> Envy doesn't count...
Click to expand...

*
Envy doesn't count...
*
Does failure count?


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
Click to expand...


*THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS
*
The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
Click to expand...

*
Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
*
Liar!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, GOP/CONservat
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, it was government policy, doesn't that matter to you?
Click to expand...


Yep, GOP/CONservatives USUAL, bad Gov't policy.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS
> *
> The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
> How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?
Click to expand...


They do, and the last one will run out in 2034.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

What is is infatuation with Reagan?  The man;s been dead for what10 -11 years?  I'm surprised he's not blaming the civil war on Reagan.  Must be a public school grad... dumber than shit.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan.* The Galveston plan does _not _have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system*
> 
> *Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan.* Under the Galveston Plan, _initial _retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
> 
> 
> *Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.*
> 
> 
> 
> The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, _there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries _.
> 
> *In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees*. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.
> 
> Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
Click to expand...



I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaahh.
> I'm sorry your parents weren't successful and that you inherited the same. Maybe you should whine some more?
Click to expand...


Stop projecting dummy


----------



## boedicca

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> *The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches......... *
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
Click to expand...



I agree that people who put in more hours, money, headaches etc. often benefit more from our society...because they themselves DO more.

Unfortunately, those who benefit THE MOST from our current Big Government Cronyism system are the political parasites and the cronies who collude to privatize profit and socialiize risk.   One can't say that they EARNED what they get, but they do play the game (according to the rules they themselves write).  And it's at Our Expense.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!
Click to expand...

 
Look at Venezuela and see how your Fabian Socialist wetdream is working...


----------



## boedicca

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
Click to expand...



Because EQUALTIY!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS
> *
> The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
> How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?
Click to expand...



Sure, but conservatives/GOP don't want to pay them back, AND the money's were used to pay for running Gov't for 30 years!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
Click to expand...


* putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
*
That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> 
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
> *
> That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
> Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.
Click to expand...


Yeah... but he meant well.  And in liberal lalaland... intentions are all that matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, *_*there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries *_*.
> *
> Sure there would. The US taxpayer would continue to pay the benefits until all the recipients passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!
Click to expand...


* look to Chile's supposed "miracle"
*
How does it compare to Venezuela's march to a glorious socialist future?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does our society and laws have to do with anything?  We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy.   How does that work anyhow?
> 
> The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........
> 
> Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn.  Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything.  It means you worked harder than I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT, because SOME PEOPLE (Mittens Romney, Koch Brothers, the Walton's,etc) WERE born on 3rd base. Honesty. Try it'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it to you?  Why do you feel entitled to something you or your family didn't earn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ONE EARNED A BILLION DOLLARS. Not one Walton family member nor A Koch earned their wealth, but by the lucky sperm club!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaahh.
> I'm sorry your parents weren't successful and that you inherited the same. Maybe you should whine some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy
Click to expand...


I'm unable to project your failure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of them.  They are called IRA's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS
> *
> The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
> How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but conservatives/GOP don't want to pay them back, AND the money's were used to pay for running Gov't for 30 years!
Click to expand...


*Sure, but conservatives/GOP don't want to pay them back
*
Conservatives don't want to pay back government bonds?
Sounds like another of your lies.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS
> *
> The Trust Funds that invested in Government bonds?
> How can you raid those? Don't they still have government bonds in there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but conservatives/GOP don't want to pay them back, AND the money's were used to pay for running Gov't for 30 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, but conservatives/GOP don't want to pay them back
> *
> Conservatives don't want to pay back government bonds?
> Sounds like another of your lies.
Click to expand...


My sincerest hope is he's young and dumb... cause that can be fixed.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, TOTALLY differ objective of the Social Security INSURANCE Program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
Click to expand...







*Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.

Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:

“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.

*Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road


Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com


----------



## OnePercenter

Dad2three said:


> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart



Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> What is is infatuation with Reagan?  The man;s been dead for what10 -11 years?  I'm surprised he's not blaming the civil war on Reagan.  Must be a public school grad... dumber than shit.




Right, because a guys dead, doesn't mean POLICY ends right? Hint conservatives bitch about FDR  80 years AFTER his programs were put in place, lol


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I/m outta here... I can't take any more of this moron.


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at Venezuela and see how your Fabian Socialist wetdream is working...
Click to expand...


Fabian? lol


PLEASE give me ONE state/nation to EVER use your libertarian BS successfully? EVER?


----------



## SharpArrowhead

I think as long as it's proportional, that would be right.  The rich have so many ways to reduce their taxes so they pay less in terms of proportion.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> 
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
> *
> That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
> Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.
Click to expand...


YEP, Ronnie TRIPLED US debt where Obama walked into what GOP/Dubya set him up with. 

HE DEFEATED THE EMPIRE? WHOSE PUTIN? What was 45 years of US policy on containment? lol

Saint Ronnie, without the collective amnesia of right wingers, what Ronnie's REAL policies did,  what would you Klowns have?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?



Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you prefer welfare. Got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * look to Chile's supposed "miracle"
> *
> How does it compare to Venezuela's march to a glorious socialist future?
Click to expand...


So NO, you will not look to Friedman's "free market" miracle, so instead you'll use a "socialist" failure put through whose lens bubs? Who exactly was saying it was a paradise again Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
> *
> That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
> Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... but he meant well.  And in liberal lalaland... intentions are all that matter.
Click to expand...



Yep, it wasn't the shithole hole Dubya/GOP left US in, it was Obama? lol


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Which your failed voting record allowed to happen.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dad2three said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and LIES, the right wingers would have NOTHING. Oh right, it's what they argue now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's his platform..........and you guys think you are Robin N the hoods....................Your side is good at one thing..........Driving business away.................
> 
> I remember building a gas turbine plant in Mohave Arizona........Just across the border from Needles Liberalfornia..................during the Black outs............Do you know why it was built in Arizona........because the power plant said it would be a cold day in Hell when they would build it in California...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> Sure Bubba, sure. You mean when Dubya allowed the "free market" to hose Cali during the created energy crisis? Weird
> 
> 
> I bet they said that too, the largest US economy in Cali, by FARRRR , LOL, WHAT are we doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Big difference between the Con Artist at ENRON, and the actual utilities working there.  2 went bankrupt, and California bought the transmission lines to save the third utility there back then.

Bottom line California has a habit of chasing away companies.................Why should they come in there and build when people like you say your gonna regulate and tax their asses off.......................I heard that from the big dogs building that plant...........

Just down the street..................a PEAKER COAL PLANT RUNNING AT 30 % CAPACITY...............But they would be fined for producing more power to stop the Black Outs because COAL IS THE DEVIL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU............


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
 and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
 Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.


----------



## eagle1462010

OnePercenter said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then simplify the code and end the BS.  Set percentage with no BS......................
> That has been said many times in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

With the Status quo.................NOPE..........We are trying to take out the trash...........how about your side...

Oops you favor Liars and criminals..............Like Hillary, and the pen and phone guy.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> For some inexplicable reason leftists just don't (or can't) understand that taxes on business are simply passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services and that much like sales taxes they place an inordinate burden on the poorer consumer.



All costs to business are passed along to the consumer.


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so it's NOT the entire FAA structure we should worry about, just they pay 75% of costs? lol
> 
> Dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airport construction and security do not fall under the FAA, retard.
Click to expand...


Wrong

Press Release – FAA Dedicates New Control Tower at Oakland International Airport


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Maryland Patriot said:


> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.



Oh come on.  You know how it works by now! 

Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.

Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.

Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.

We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.

Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.

Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> Wrong
> 
> Press Release – FAA Dedicates New Control Tower at Oakland International Airport



Uh stupid, towers are for air traffic control...


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Safer than the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
Click to expand...


Define: 'basically zero.'


----------



## francoHFW

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

Iraq was the stupidest, most corrupt war ever. Let the ME figure it out, with bombing help from us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
Click to expand...

 They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> ...The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*



So Walmart complied with a tax law enacted by congress? Big whup. Millions of Americans do just that every April 15.
The author of the "study" was something called Americans for Tax Fairness, which describes itself as "a diverse campaign of national, state and local organizations united in support of a tax system that works for all Americans."

Sure it is.

ATF claims to be "based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules."

The focus is getting clearer.

"Americans for Tax Fairness was established to help make the economy work for all — with adequate levels of investment in critical areas that create and sustain jobs and a balanced and equitable approach to decisions on the federal budget challenges we face. This requires raising sufficient revenues with everyone, including corporations, paying their fair share of taxes."

Interestingly ATF seems to believe only Walmart and the wealthy must pay more in taxes to achieve "fairness" while no consideration is given to redistributing current federal revenues to accomplish their "mission" and none at all to cutting gov't spending. Frankly, ATF seems to be a "progressive" entity whose sole purpose is to promote higher taxes (for corps and the wealthy) and more gov't spending.

ATF's co-chairs are:
Mary Kusler, the Director of Government Relations for the National Education Association.
Kim Fellner, associate director of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.
Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, 29% of whose funding comes from - drum roll, please - LABOR UNIONS.

Americans for Tax Fairness


----------



## francoHFW

When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.*
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> Outrageous!!!!!
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
Click to expand...


You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source,* "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."*

My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.

As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.


----------



## OnePercenter

eagle1462010 said:


> Big difference between the Con Artist at ENRON, and the actual utilities working there.  2 went bankrupt, and California bought the transmission lines to save the third utility there back then.
> 
> Bottom line California has a habit of chasing away companies.................Why should they come in there and build when people like you say your gonna regulate and tax their asses off.......................I heard that from the big dogs building that plant...........
> 
> Just down the street..................a PEAKER COAL PLANT RUNNING AT 30 % CAPACITY...............But they would be fined for producing more power to stop the Black Outs because COAL IS THE DEVIL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU............



For a State that you say 'chases away companies', California has a crap load of companies.

Coal was shut down by the market. Natural gas is MUCH less expensive. Fewer dead miners too!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
Click to expand...


No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid. 

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.  

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between the Con Artist at ENRON, and the actual utilities working there.  2 went bankrupt, and California bought the transmission lines to save the third utility there back then.
> 
> Bottom line California has a habit of chasing away companies.................Why should they come in there and build when people like you say your gonna regulate and tax their asses off.......................I heard that from the big dogs building that plant...........
> 
> Just down the street..................a PEAKER COAL PLANT RUNNING AT 30 % CAPACITY...............But they would be fined for producing more power to stop the Black Outs because COAL IS THE DEVIL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a State that you say 'chases away companies', California has a crap load of companies.
> 
> Coal was shut down by the market. Natural gas is MUCH less expensive. Fewer dead miners too!
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.



Can you name one person that couldn't afford to make a house payment due to the 'creative loans?'


----------



## OnePercenter

eagle1462010 said:


> With the Status quo.................NOPE..........We are trying to take out the trash...........how about your side...
> 
> Oops you favor Liars and criminals..............Like Hillary, and the pen and phone guy.



No. It's because the rich/wealthy like me don't want it, and we own your ass. 

The only way to end income inequality and boost the economy is to regulate it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is broke.... personal IRA's are not.  SSI is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
Click to expand...

*
Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
*
Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.



Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'
Click to expand...

*
Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'*

Prove it.


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Press Release – FAA Dedicates New Control Tower at Oakland International Airport
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh stupid, towers are for air traffic control...
Click to expand...


You stated:



> Airport construction and security do not fall under the FAA, retard.



You've been proven wrong.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the Status quo.................NOPE..........We are trying to take out the trash...........how about your side...
> 
> Oops you favor Liars and criminals..............Like Hillary, and the pen and phone guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's because the rich/wealthy like me don't want it, and we own your ass.
> 
> The only way to end income inequality and boost the economy is to regulate it.
Click to expand...


I'm not certain who you think you are fooling but possession of some video game console does not mean you are wealthy.


----------



## OnePercenter

francoHFW said:


> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.



No. It's time for this;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should really just stop, Im almost embarrassed for you because of the ass whipping you are taking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
> *
> That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
> Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEP, Ronnie TRIPLED US debt where Obama walked into what GOP/Dubya set him up with.
> 
> HE DEFEATED THE EMPIRE? WHOSE PUTIN? What was 45 years of US policy on containment? lol
> 
> Saint Ronnie, without the collective amnesia of right wingers, what Ronnie's REAL policies did,  what would you Klowns have?
Click to expand...

*
YEP, Ronnie TRIPLED US debt*

Yup, $1.6 trillion increase, the bastard!
*
Obama walked into what GOP/Dubya set him up with.
*
Poor baby, I guess his $7.5 trillion increase isn't so bad then, besides, he's half-black.

*HE DEFEATED THE EMPIRE?
*
Yup, tens of millions freed from Soviet bondage.
*
*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
Click to expand...


Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.



Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations. 

Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher benefits for future retirees isn't welfare, silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, having taxpayers pay for SS benefits that has ALWAYS been paid by program recipients is however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, we could continue to pay crappy benefits with my 12.4% or we could invest my 12.4% in a plan with a much higher return. And once we've fully transitioned, the government could keep their paws off 12.4% of everyone's lifetime earnings.
> 
> I can see the attraction, for big government loving morons, to the current crappy plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it Bubba, you want to live in right wing fantasy world, hint look to Chile's supposed "miracle" to see how that libertarian BS REALLY works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * look to Chile's supposed "miracle"
> *
> How does it compare to Venezuela's march to a glorious socialist future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, you will not look to Friedman's "free market" miracle, so instead you'll use a "socialist" failure put through whose lens bubs? Who exactly was saying it was a paradise again Bubs?
Click to expand...


*So NO, you will not look to Friedman's "free market" miracle
*
Feel free to provide your proof of Chile's poor performance.
How's that Venezuelan toilet paper situation?


----------



## SAYIT

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs, beside hitting the lucky sperm lottery, why should they benefit from the fathers hard work, worth more than 80% of US COMBINED? ?????
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
Click to expand...


Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!*
> 
> Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses*
> 
> 
> The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.
> 
> “Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses;* just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This report shows that our current system is anything but fair –* rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,*” the report concluded.
> 
> The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.* It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.*
> 
> 
> Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
> 
> 
> How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State
> 
> A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes *more than $1.2 billion* in tax breaks,* free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments *around the country.
> 
> Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
> *
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> 
> Outrageous!!!!!
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which your failed voting record allowed to happen.
Click to expand...


My voting record has what to do with corporations deducting employee wages? LOL!


----------



## boedicca

SAYIT said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,
> *
> You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
> That's awful!
> Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.
> *
> why should they benefit from the fathers hard work*
> 
> Why not. You know, private ownership*.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
Click to expand...


To the Progs, you have no rights.




7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
Click to expand...

 ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'*
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


There is no mention of Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation in any SEC filings, which means they aren't part of Walmart Stores, Inc.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the Status quo.................NOPE..........We are trying to take out the trash...........how about your side...
> 
> Oops you favor Liars and criminals..............Like Hillary, and the pen and phone guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's because the rich/wealthy like me don't want it, and we own your ass.
> 
> The only way to end income inequality and boost the economy is to regulate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not certain who you think you are fooling but possession of some video game console does not mean you are wealthy.
Click to expand...


Bloviating does not make your point.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*



Sam Walton was a classic American rags-2-riches success story. The loony lefties who would destroy America's socio-economic system to serve their definition of "fairness" mostly want to end the kind of opportunity that made Walton's success possible:

"Sam Walton was born to Tom Gibson Walton and Nancy Lee, in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, He lived there with his parents on their farm until 1923. However, farming did not provide enough money to raise a family, and Thomas Walton went into farm mortgaging.
"Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family as was common at the time. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver _Columbia Daily Tribune_ newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
"After high school, Walton decided to attend college, hoping to find a better way to help support his family. He attended the University of Missouri as an ROTC cadet. During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals."


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.


----------



## francoHFW

boedicca said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

 Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised
> 
> 
> Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define: 'basically zero.'
Click to expand...


Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
No boost based on his early death.

So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.


----------



## boedicca

francoHFW said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?
Click to expand...



Please, take an English as a Second Language class.


----------



## thanatos144

francoHFW said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?
Click to expand...

So what is it that makes you hate the children of the USA that you burden them wit my debt?  Why are you so greedy?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
Click to expand...


You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
Click to expand...


You want me to tell them that if they invested 12.4% of lifetime earnings in the market instead of in Social Security that they'd have a lot more money in retirement, even with the fluctuations in the market? Okay.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
Click to expand...


Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history. I take it you keep your money in your checking acct, bank CDs and six-packs of beer.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, It's me conflating RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR A SOCIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like social security because it was designed as something that had to be paid into in order to get something back out.
> you want the free money where you put no effort into earning it, but you still get a check from someone elses bank account.
> what a welfare queen you must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting dummy. After 35 years of Reaganomics, putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING,  you want to call ME a welfare queen? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * putting EVERYTHING on the credit card for the baby boomer generation, NEVER wanting to pay for ANYTHING
> *
> That darn Reagan was a slacker! $1.6 trillion added to the debt and all he did was defeat the Evil Empire.
> Obama has added $7.5 trillion, so far, and all he did was let ISIS run wild across the Middle East, released Iran from international sanctions and let Russia get away with invading the Ukraine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEP, Ronnie TRIPLED US debt where Obama walked into what GOP/Dubya set him up with.
> 
> HE DEFEATED THE EMPIRE? WHOSE PUTIN? What was 45 years of US policy on containment? lol
> 
> Saint Ronnie, without the collective amnesia of right wingers, what Ronnie's REAL policies did,  what would you Klowns have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YEP, Ronnie TRIPLED US debt*
> 
> Yup, $1.6 trillion increase, the bastard!
> *
> Obama walked into what GOP/Dubya set him up with.
> *
> Poor baby, I guess his $7.5 trillion increase isn't so bad then, besides, he's half-black.
> 
> *HE DEFEATED THE EMPIRE?
> *
> Yup, tens of millions freed from Soviet bondage.
Click to expand...

 Yup, tripled it in good times, started S+L BUST and big recession. What a genius.

UE and welfare for W's victims were 800 billion/year, STILL 400 billion. Great job. And we're better off than anywhere else in the world now.

Gorby did that. We're lucky Reagan's bluster and grandstanding didn't get the USSR's hardliners back in.

And Reagan's legacy is WORSE. W. and now.

*The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers. *
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
*1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
*A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
*An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
*A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
*5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
*A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
*A 10% Decrease.*
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts


----------



## francoHFW

boedicca said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please, take an English as a Second Language class.
Click to expand...

No argument at all, go to stupid insults...Pub dupes....


----------



## boedicca

francoHFW said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please, take an English as a Second Language class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument at all, go to stupid insults...Pub dupes....
Click to expand...



^^^ Irony is Ironic ^^^


----------



## SAYIT

Just to summarize this the latest Normal American vs. Loony Leftist thread:

LL: Hey, you have more than me. That's not fair. Gimme some.

NA: Hey, go f*%k yourself.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
Click to expand...

 My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.


----------



## francoHFW

boedicca said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasingly I find some small difference between libs, who focus on social policy, and leftists, who focus on OPM (Other People's Money). That said, it is crystal clear that leftists will abide no infringement on their "right" to redistribute your wealth to themselves and those they would endow.
> The income/wealth "inequality" scam so popular with loony leftists is a thin veneer for "take from the rich (anyone with more than them) and give it to me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Progs, you have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7359 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total hater dupe bs. Give to rebuilding the nonrich and the country and training the UE. Jeebus you're brainwashed. Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please, take an English as a Second Language class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument at all, go to stupid insults...Pub dupes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Irony is Ironic ^^^
Click to expand...

 But thanks for the ready made propaganda. When you have a personal thought, send up a flare.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> Just to summarize this the latest Normal American vs. Loony Leftist thread:
> 
> LL: Hey, you have more than me. That's not fair. Gimme some.
> 
> NA: Hey, go f*%k yourself.


 See sig for how the country has gone to hell, dingbat dupe.


----------



## SAYIT

Just to summarize this the latest Normal American vs. Loony Leftist thread:

LL: Hey, you have more than me. That's not fair. Gimme some.

NA: Hey, go f*%k yourself.

As an aside, I perused the last 12 pages (about 40 Dad2Three posts) and in none of them did anyone award Dad with an atta-boy for his work here. Not a "thanks" nor an "agree" nor even a "LOL." Nothing. Considering his prolific loony leftist braying and the effort he applies to his posts one would think that someone would find his silliness worthy of some love. Nope. In fact, considering the sources the boy employs I'd say he's a low-level union office clerk on a mission


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure he is. Look who drank the kool-aid. If Soros was sincere he would throw in with Gates and Buffett and put his wealth - garnered by raping economically defenseless countries - to work helping Americans.
Soros is an ideologically driven fraud, just like you.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
Click to expand...


Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mention of Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation in any SEC filings, which means they aren't part of Walmart Stores, Inc.
Click to expand...



Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
* Distribution Centers *

Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.

Walmart Logistics

LOL!


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.
Click to expand...


Nothing is stopping any of them from not taking deductions and paying more in taxes. But they don't do they, I wonder why?


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sam Walton was a classic American rags-2-riches success story. The loony lefties who would destroy America's socio-economic system to serve their definition of "fairness" mostly want to end the kind of opportunity that made Walton's success possible:
> 
> "Sam Walton was born to Tom Gibson Walton and Nancy Lee, in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, He lived there with his parents on their farm until 1923. However, farming did not provide enough money to raise a family, and Thomas Walton went into farm mortgaging.
> "Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family as was common at the time. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver _Columbia Daily Tribune_ newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
> "After high school, Walton decided to attend college, hoping to find a better way to help support his family. He attended the University of Missouri as an ROTC cadet. During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals."
Click to expand...


And look what his children have done to tarnish his effort.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sam Walton was a classic American rags-2-riches success story. The loony lefties who would destroy America's socio-economic system to serve their definition of "fairness" mostly want to end the kind of opportunity that made Walton's success possible:
> 
> "Sam Walton was born to Tom Gibson Walton and Nancy Lee, in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, He lived there with his parents on their farm until 1923. However, farming did not provide enough money to raise a family, and Thomas Walton went into farm mortgaging.
> "Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family as was common at the time. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver _Columbia Daily Tribune_ newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
> "After high school, Walton decided to attend college, hoping to find a better way to help support his family. He attended the University of Missouri as an ROTC cadet. During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look what his children have done to tarnish his effort.
Click to expand...

other than continuing to build his vision, exactly how have they tarnished his efforts.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.



She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.

I made $1.00 last year.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
Click to expand...

can I has fiddy cent?


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
Click to expand...

We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
Click to expand...

we protect more of the world than the world combined.


----------



## sealybobo

Maryland Patriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we protect more of the world than the world combined.
Click to expand...

Stop


----------



## dblack

Maryland Patriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we protect more of the world than the world combined.
Click to expand...


An oxymoronic aphorism is the perfect defense of our status quo.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want me to tell them that if they invested 12.4% of lifetime earnings in the market instead of in Social Security that they'd have a lot more money in retirement, even with the fluctuations in the market? Okay.



If you want to call 2008 a 'fluctuation.' LOL

My former in-laws failed to heed my 'ALL-OUT' warning of August, 2007. So instead of Social Security + $5K/mo., they have Social Security + $1K/mo. My ex takes care of most of their bills.


----------



## OnePercenter

SAYIT said:


> Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history. I take it you keep your money in your checking acct, bank CDs and six-packs of beer.



Vested and holding accounts.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
Click to expand...


Didn't say we didn't, did I.


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.



The better way;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!



Read the door. LOL!


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better way;
> 
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
Click to expand...


But what about death? We should make that illegal too.


----------



## Dad2three

eagle1462010 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals think they are Robin Hood and America is Sherwood Forrest................And they get votes from the Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and LIES, the right wingers would have NOTHING. Oh right, it's what they argue now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's his platform..........and you guys think you are Robin N the hoods....................Your side is good at one thing..........Driving business away.................
> 
> I remember building a gas turbine plant in Mohave Arizona........Just across the border from Needles Liberalfornia..................during the Black outs............Do you know why it was built in Arizona........because the power plant said it would be a cold day in Hell when they would build it in California...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> Sure Bubba, sure. You mean when Dubya allowed the "free market" to hose Cali during the created energy crisis? Weird
> 
> 
> I bet they said that too, the largest US economy in Cali, by FARRRR , LOL, WHAT are we doing wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big difference between the Con Artist at ENRON, and the actual utilities working there.  2 went bankrupt, and California bought the transmission lines to save the third utility there back then.
> 
> Bottom line California has a habit of chasing away companies.................Why should they come in there and build when people like you say your gonna regulate and tax their asses off.......................I heard that from the big dogs building that plant...........
> 
> Just down the street..................a PEAKER COAL PLANT RUNNING AT 30 % CAPACITY...............But they would be fined for producing more power to stop the Black Outs because COAL IS THE DEVIL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU............
Click to expand...


Weird, the "free market" causes the energy comps to go BK, AND YOU BLAME CALI? lol

*The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices*



Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,and m*arket manipulation** decreased supply. *This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000


*California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW.* A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price*. Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. *Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001

*The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets*

*California electricity crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


*MORONIC LIAR! *


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> other than continuing to build his vision, exactly how have they tarnished his efforts.



Sam Walton's vision was to pay his employees so little that they qualified for public assistance while the company took tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies? Sure it was.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014
> 
> 1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
> 2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
> 3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
> 4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
> 5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
> 6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
> 7.  The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
> 
> While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
Click to expand...


Which is why we are more prepared for defense than all the other countries combined.


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> we protect more of the world than the world combined.



We protect our financial interests.


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we protect more of the world than the world combined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We protect our financial interests.
Click to expand...


It sounds so wholesome.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"That's not a tax break for the Waltons."*
> 
> 
> 
> True, Walton's ONLY have a greater than 50% stake in Walmart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Remember, Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation are privately held companies wholly owned by the Walmart seven, so they receive more than the 'greater than 50% stake.'*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no mention of Walmart Procurement, Logistics, and Transportation in any SEC filings, which means they aren't part of Walmart Stores, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...



And.....if you ever talked to any of their tractor-trailer drivers (as I have) , they are more than happy with the pay and benefits Wal-Mart provides.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.



TO FUKKN FUNNY BUBS


*FACTS on Dubya's great recession*

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was *triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



*Bush's documented policies* and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
Lowering Invesntment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004) 
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments  PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

* Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." *

*
June 17, 2004*


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/facts-on-dubyas-great-recession.362889/













CLINTON? BARNEY? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
Click to expand...


How much did your trust make?
How much did your trust pay in taxes?


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure he is. Look who drank the kool-aid. If Soros was sincere he would throw in with Gates and Buffett and put his wealth - garnered by raping economically defenseless countries - to work helping Americans.
> Soros is an ideologically driven fraud, just like you.
Click to expand...

 BS. Read wiki - HUGE at charities, bringing democracy to 3rd world, fact checking here, raping my ass. You believe a gigantic pile of Pubcrappe.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history.
Click to expand...


This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  You know how it works by now!
> 
> Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.
> 
> Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.
> 
> Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.
> 
> We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.
> 
> Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.
Click to expand...


MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking



*"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.*
















*Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.*


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


*The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

*The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street*

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


*BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS*






*
We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.*


*Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion*

*Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
Click to expand...


It was only lost temporarily.  The market not only recovered, but because of the Fed Reserve pumping money into the market, your losses turned into profits quickly.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
Click to expand...



OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS? LOL

*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street.


*
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble*


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
Click to expand...

 Thanks to GOP defending to the death Reaganist policy that should have ended about 1987.
*The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers. *
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
*1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
*A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
*An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
*A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
*5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
*A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
*A 10% Decrease.*
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
Click to expand...


2014 - $36.5M

Federal taxes were 4%.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.* The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.*
> 
> *Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Walmart complied with a tax law enacted by congress? Big whup. Millions of Americans do just that every April 15.
> The author of the "study" was something called Americans for Tax Fairness, which describes itself as "a diverse campaign of national, state and local organizations united in support of a tax system that works for all Americans."
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> ATF claims to be "based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules."
> 
> The focus is getting clearer.
> 
> "Americans for Tax Fairness was established to help make the economy work for all — with adequate levels of investment in critical areas that create and sustain jobs and a balanced and equitable approach to decisions on the federal budget challenges we face. This requires raising sufficient revenues with everyone, including corporations, paying their fair share of taxes."
> 
> Interestingly ATF seems to believe only Walmart and the wealthy must pay more in taxes to achieve "fairness" while no consideration is given to redistributing current federal revenues to accomplish their "mission" and none at all to cutting gov't spending. Frankly, ATF seems to be a "progressive" entity whose sole purpose is to promote higher taxes (for corps and the wealthy) and more gov't spending.
> 
> ATF's co-chairs are:
> Mary Kusler, the Director of Government Relations for the National Education Association.
> Kim Fellner, associate director of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.
> Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, 29% of whose funding comes from - drum roll, please - LABOR UNIONS.
> 
> Americans for Tax Fairness
Click to expand...


Yep, the plutocrats YOU support have captured Gov't, and the PROGRESSIVES are trying to bring back FAIRNESS (like 1945-1980)  where the top 1% don't take over 90% of ALL gains!  

I know, lets cut Gov't spending since austerity has proved to work so well EVERYWHERE it's tried right? lol


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.



True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.*
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> Outrageous!!!!!
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source,* "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."*
> 
> My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.
> 
> As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.
Click to expand...



YOU deny the plutocrats have bought DC? SERIOUSLY? lol'


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
Click to expand...


*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. *The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




*Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.*



*"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.*

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.
> 
> Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.
Click to expand...


And why did natural gas prices drop?  That's right, fracking:

*Obama's Abandoned Power Plants*
Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012


*At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech*

By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech


OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
Click to expand...


*Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much*

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

*Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016*

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
Click to expand...


*Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble*


*He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.*

*Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.*

*And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down*








*Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.
*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
Click to expand...


Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It was only lost temporarily.  The market not only recovered, but because of the Fed Reserve pumping money into the market, your losses turned into profits quickly.



A person that saved a portion of their income to invest over a 30 year period made all of their money back in 7? How?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
Click to expand...




*2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership*


We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS)  (Applause.) …


*White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire *


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002 


here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
*
But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.*

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition *to expand the Republican tent *— and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. *But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Broke? lol
> 
> PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM, THAT CONSERVATIVES STARTING WITH REAGAN, RAIDED THE TRUST FUNDS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
Click to expand...



$2.7 TRILLION BUBS


AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
Click to expand...

 Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.
> 
> Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why did natural gas prices drop?  That's right, fracking:
> 
> *Obama's Abandoned Power Plants*
> Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012
> 
> 
> *At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech*
> 
> By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
> At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much*
> 
> Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much
> 
> *Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016*
> 
> Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016
Click to expand...


Historically

Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart

Future

US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com

Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
Click to expand...


Layoffs and business closures to shift monies to the market.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
Click to expand...



Weird how the middle class incomes grew ALONG with those "job creators" 1945-1980. What changed?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better way;
> 
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
Click to expand...

*
Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*

Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sam Walton was a classic American rags-2-riches success story. The loony lefties who would destroy America's socio-economic system to serve their definition of "fairness" mostly want to end the kind of opportunity that made Walton's success possible:
> 
> "Sam Walton was born to Tom Gibson Walton and Nancy Lee, in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, He lived there with his parents on their farm until 1923. However, farming did not provide enough money to raise a family, and Thomas Walton went into farm mortgaging.
> "Growing up during the Great Depression, Walton had numerous chores to help make financial ends meet for his family as was common at the time. He milked the family cow, bottled the surplus, and drove it to customers. Afterwards, he would deliver _Columbia Daily Tribune_ newspapers on a paper route. In addition, he also sold magazine subscriptions.
> "After high school, Walton decided to attend college, hoping to find a better way to help support his family. He attended the University of Missouri as an ROTC cadet. During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals."
Click to expand...



Sam Walton? Yep, his lucky sperm club members? Nope, like the Kochs who together make up 6 of the top 10 richest AmeriKans. INHERITANCE, JUST LIKE OUR FOUNDERS WANTED RIGHT? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When 95% of new wealth goes to the richest 1% and the nonrich and the country are falling apart, it's time for more taxes on the richest and their tax free corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is stopping any of them from not taking deductions and paying more in taxes. But they don't do they, I wonder why?
Click to expand...



GOOD GOV'T POLICY NOT CHARITY? Just saying!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the door. LOL!
Click to expand...


*List of assets owned by Walmart*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
*Walmart Stores, Inc.* is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.


Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
Walmart Discount Stores (498)
Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
Neighborhood Markets (381)
Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
Walmart.com


Sam's Club (640)

Logistics
*Walmart Transportation*
Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)


Walmart Realty

Claims Management.

Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.

The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.

List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we protect more of the world than the world combined.
Click to expand...


You meant to say the multi national Corp interests. Corrected it for you


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was only lost temporarily.  The market not only recovered, but because of the Fed Reserve pumping money into the market, your losses turned into profits quickly.
Click to expand...




SOME did. Many lost their asses


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
Click to expand...


Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
You're lying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, right.. its Reagan's fault.
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
Click to expand...


*$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
*
from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
Click to expand...



*David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*


*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*


David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the guy is in his early 60s, I assume no minor children.
> And since his wife worked too, she's still going to collect her same benefit.
> No boost based on his early death.
> 
> So how much was your income that you paid zero taxes on? Details man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
Click to expand...


*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*

What were their loss carryovers from 2008?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%, which hid the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, and then using the trust funds of the $3 trillion in excess payments, WASN'T the fault of Ronnie??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
Click to expand...



Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings

1980 *8.100%*

1988-89 *15.020%*


FICA & SECA Tax Rates


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> She'll collect his side as the last surviving spouse when she reaches age.
> 
> I made $1.00 last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
Click to expand...



DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it


IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nah, Ronnie "saving SS" by increasing SS taxes 60%,
> *
> Liar!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Click to expand...


*Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
*
Over what time frame? As compared to what?

*which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
*
Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?


Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much did your trust make?
> How much did your trust pay in taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
Click to expand...

*
YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
*
Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

*IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
*
Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
Click to expand...


Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

 Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

*
Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."





*If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
*
If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
Click to expand...


*Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

*to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
*
Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

*Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
*
How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

* "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
*
So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

*If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
*
But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
*
If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
*
Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.*
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> Outrageous!!!!!
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source,* "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."*
> 
> My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.
> 
> As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU deny the plutocrats have bought DC? SERIOUSLY? lol'
Click to expand...


So I will take that to mean your claim was just more whiny, sniveling, loony leftist BS.
Why am I not surprised.


----------



## SAYIT

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.
> 
> Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why did natural gas prices drop?  That's right, fracking:
> 
> *Obama's Abandoned Power Plants*
> Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012
> 
> 
> *At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech*
> 
> By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
> At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much*
> 
> Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much
> 
> *Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016*
> 
> Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historically
> 
> Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart
> 
> Future
> 
> US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com
> 
> Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.
Click to expand...


Ah .. got it!
When things go wrong for a Dem admin it's the "market" but when it happens to a Repub admin it's the Repub.
Stupid, low-brow, knuckle-draggin' lefties ... America's cross to bear.


----------



## Papageorgio

dblack said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better way;
> 
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what about death? We should make that illegal too.
Click to expand...


Pretty silly isn't it. He pipes this crap all the time. He'd put most small businesses out of business. Mom and pops would disappear. 

If he has so much have him donate 90% of his wealth to the government.


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better way;
> 
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?
Click to expand...


He doesn't have to prove squat. He thinks he is a one percenter, hell the guy has quadrupled his wealth in less than two years, can't you take his word for it? Lol!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Layoffs and business closures to shift monies to the market.
Click to expand...


You're talking businesses.  I asked how did Republicans do that; you know, as in Republican politicians and policies?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.
> 
> Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why did natural gas prices drop?  That's right, fracking:
> 
> *Obama's Abandoned Power Plants*
> Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012
> 
> 
> *At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech*
> 
> By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
> At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much*
> 
> Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much
> 
> *Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016*
> 
> Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historically
> 
> Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart
> 
> Future
> 
> US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com
> 
> Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.
Click to expand...


The "market" didn't sick their EPA buddies to close down power plants and dramatically increase the cost to produce electricity,  Obama did.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
Click to expand...


Oh, is that why?  (LOL)  

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership*
> 
> 
> We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.
> 
> I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS)  (Applause.) …
> 
> 
> *White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire *
> 
> 
> “We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
> 
> 
> here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
> *
> But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.*
> 
> From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
> 
> He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition *to expand the Republican tent *— and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. *But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
> *
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...


As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. 

Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.

I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason behind all those projects. Look into them you realize GOP being petty hypocrites and only telling half the story. It's an election year coming up get ready.
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why we are more prepared for defense than all the other countries combined.
Click to expand...

And why we're broke


----------



## thanatos144

OnePercenter said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> other than continuing to build his vision, exactly how have they tarnished his efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sam Walton's vision was to pay his employees so little that they qualified for public assistance while the company took tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies? Sure it was.....
Click to expand...

You progressives are so stupid you believe that lie. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could that possibly be because the top 1% benefit from wise investments in America, creating new jobs, products and services while the poor do not invest at all? The rich are not rich because the poor are poor and the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Your consistent jealousy - like that of all the loony lefties here, there and everywhere, has been duly noted ... again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Perfect brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...funny how I'm not jealous of Dem rich, just the lying a-holes we're all cheated by. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like George Soros who funds all manner of loony left lunacy with money he made by raping small, economically defenseless countries?
> Oh wait ... he's a Dem so it's all good.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, you know a lot of total bs...he's for raising his own taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure he is. Look who drank the kool-aid. If Soros was sincere he would throw in with Gates and Buffett and put his wealth - garnered by raping economically defenseless countries - to work helping Americans.
> Soros is an ideologically driven fraud, just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. Read wiki - HUGE at charities, bringing democracy to 3rd world, fact checking here, raping my ass. You believe a gigantic pile of Pubcrappe.
Click to expand...

You are reading a wiki you dummy

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *4*
> If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had all of your eggs in the market when Republicans/corporate America/BushCo crashed the economy in 2007/2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd still have much, much more than from Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans that lost some or all of their retirement income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yanno, for those with the stomach to stay the course, 2009-2015 was about the most profitable 6 years in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
Click to expand...

So people became  rich... so what?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  You know how it works by now!
> 
> Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.
> 
> Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.
> 
> Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.
> 
> We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.
> 
> Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking
> 
> 
> 
> *"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.*
> 
> 
> FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:
> 
> Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
> 
> FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005
> 
> 
> *The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*
> 
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.
> 
> 
> 
> "Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."
> 
> 
> 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
> 
> *The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street*
> 
> The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street
> 
> 
> *BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.*
> 
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:
> 
> 2007 $1.3 trillion
> 
> Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion*
> 
> *Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack

As I see it, the question of higher or lower taxes isn't so much an issue of who has to pay for it, but who will be spending it. It's a question of who holds economic power in society, the people or the government?


----------



## thanatos144

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
Click to expand...

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better way;
> 
> 
> -Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> -Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
> 
> -Companies with 500 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.
> 
> -Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?
Click to expand...

Hey dummy I don't want to buy a gallon of milk for 16 dollars .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the door. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *List of assets owned by Walmart*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> *Walmart Stores, Inc.* is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.
> 
> 
> Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
> Walmart Discount Stores (498)
> Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
> Neighborhood Markets (381)
> Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
> Walmart.com
> 
> 
> Sam's Club (640)
> 
> Logistics
> *Walmart Transportation*
> Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)
> 
> 
> Walmart Realty
> 
> Claims Management.
> 
> Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.
> 
> The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.
> 
> List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

It is a wiki. God you progressives are stupid 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts*. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following:
> 
> As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens.
> 
> Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included:
> 
> “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
> 
> *Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed* in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly two decades down the road
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist  : FedSmith.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reagan needed a new source of revenue to replace the revenue lost as a result of his unaffordable income tax cuts. He wasn’t about to rescind any of his income-tax cuts, but he had another idea. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes?
> *
> Sneaky! So he dropped the 1981 rates from
> 70%, 68%, 64%, 59%, 54%, 49%, 43%, 37%, 32%, 28%, 24%, 21%, 18%, 16%, 14% down to
> 50%, 49%, 44%, 39%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 22%, 19%, 16%, 14%, 12%.
> And to replace the "lost revenue", he raised the Social Security tax *from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 - $36.5M
> 
> Federal taxes were 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
Click to expand...

A tax cut doesn't cost us anything you retard. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> 
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
Click to expand...

Norway has a much smaller population 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

We have a spending problem.  Our tax problem is that our taxes are to high.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS...................It's wasteful spending..............hundreds of Billions of waste in the Waste book every year....................and your side we can't cut spending.........
> 
> 
> 
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
Click to expand...


Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.


----------



## thanatos144

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized  world.  Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Norway has a much smaller population
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


And a much much smaller economy and they are in debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
Click to expand...


*Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also
*
According to the CIA World Factbook, last year their public debt was less than 30% of GDP.

The World Factbook


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
Click to expand...




*Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, *each*

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> $2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> 
> 
> AND DOUBLED THE SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX. HINT SS TAX REVENUES WENT UP 60%, lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> 
> David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400 - The National Memo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
Click to expand...



Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

*
Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.*
> Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
> Outrageous!!!!!
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BENDING the law they bought? Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source,* "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."*
> 
> My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.
> 
> As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU deny the plutocrats have bought DC? SERIOUSLY? lol'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I will take that to mean your claim was just more whiny, sniveling, loony leftist BS.
> Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...


Your surrender accepted Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions.  They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology.  It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.
> 
> Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why did natural gas prices drop?  That's right, fracking:
> 
> *Obama's Abandoned Power Plants*
> Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012
> 
> 
> *At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech*
> 
> By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
> At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much*
> 
> Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much
> 
> *Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016*
> 
> Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historically
> 
> Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart
> 
> Future
> 
> US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com
> 
> Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah .. got it!
> When things go wrong for a Dem admin it's the "market" but when it happens to a Repub admin it's the Repub.
> Stupid, low-brow, knuckle-draggin' lefties ... America's cross to bear.
Click to expand...


Weird, elect guys who "don't believe"Gov't can be the regulator, then have guys like Harding/Coolidge/Ronnnie/Dubya HOSE US with Banksters and their "free market" BS, and you are shocked?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Layoffs and business closures to shift monies to the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking businesses.  I asked how did Republicans do that; you know, as in Republican politicians and policies?
Click to expand...


REAGANOMICS


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
Click to expand...


You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

*The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:


----------



## easyt65

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership*
> 
> 
> We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.
> 
> I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS)  (Applause.) …
> 
> 
> *White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire *
> 
> 
> “We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
> 
> 
> here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
> *
> But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.*
> 
> From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
> 
> He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition *to expand the Republican tent *— and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. *But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
> *
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess.
> 
> Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
Click to expand...



SURE BUBS, YOU MEAN YOU HAVE OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS WITH DEMS WHO COULDN'T STOP DUBYA'S BUBBLE IF THEY WANTED TOO? And?








THAT was the Dems fault? lol


----------



## easyt65

...and at nearly $1 million a pop for vacations, like everyone else, the Obamas should have to pay for their own vacations, not force tax payers to do so. I don't know about YOU, but the company I work for doesn't pay for my vacations, especially not half a dozen a year!


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  You know how it works by now!
> 
> Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.
> 
> Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.
> 
> Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.
> 
> We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.
> 
> Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking
> 
> 
> 
> *"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.*
> 
> 
> FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:
> 
> Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
> 
> FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005
> 
> 
> *The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*
> 
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.
> 
> 
> 
> "Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."
> 
> 
> 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
> 
> *The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street*
> 
> The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street
> 
> 
> *BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.*
> 
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:*
> 
> *2007 $1.3 trillion*
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion*
> 
> *Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?


*
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn.* Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly wa*s triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
Click to expand...


*1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
*
Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990. 
LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *$2.7 TRILLION BUBS
> *
> from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*
> 
> What were their loss carryovers from 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Click to expand...

*
Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
*
So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized  world.  Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk




Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?

*Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. *So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. **So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it*…*Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.*


Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay *(as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

US economy one of the slowest? lol


Sure Bubs, sure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
Click to expand...

*
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
*
Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble.  You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome.  Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.
> 
> I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous.  The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes.  Blacks vote Democrat.  That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.
> 
> What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were.  Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership*
> 
> 
> We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.
> 
> I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS)  (Applause.) …
> 
> 
> *White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire *
> 
> 
> “We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
> 
> 
> here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
> *
> But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.*
> 
> From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
> 
> He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition *to expand the Republican tent *— and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. *But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
> *
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess.
> 
> Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
Click to expand...


YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."








*Bush's documented policies* and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
*Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule(2004)*
*Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)*
*Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)*
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)*
*Giving away 40,000 free down payments per year (2004-2007)*
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2004)*


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


LET ME GUESS? You have vids of Barney Frank, minority member of the GOP House where simple majority ruled, saying stuff? AND? LOL


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
Click to expand...



Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
Click to expand...


More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
Click to expand...

 For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
Click to expand...


Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
Click to expand...

*
More of their money?
*
Did I stutter you stupid fuck?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
Click to expand...


*For THIRTEEN DAYS*

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.
> 
> For Example:
> $500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.
> 
> The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.
> 
> Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)
> 
> The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
> - The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!
> 
> There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!



Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would you right wingers EVER have Bubs?

Solyndra MORE CONservative nonsense!

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee

Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama’s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra’s Fate With Low Costs


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.
> 
> For Example:
> $500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.
> 
> The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.
> 
> Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)
> 
> The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
> - The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!
> 
> There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would you right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> Solyndra MORE CONservative nonsense!
> 
> Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
> Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee
> 
> Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money
> 
> 
> Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
> Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009
> 
> 
> Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011
> 
> 
> "advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
> Obama’s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra’s Fate With Low Costs
Click to expand...


*Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money
*
You're right, we should eliminate the entire Department.


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.
> 
> For Example:
> $500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.
> 
> The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.
> 
> Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)
> 
> The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
> - The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!
> 
> There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!



Dubya/GOP tax cut, which was SUPPOSED to boom the economy and create jobs, cost over $2+ trillion 2001-2009. The Dubya economy lost 1+ million in his 8 years, how much did each job cost Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> ...and at nearly $1 million a pop for vacations, like everyone else, the Obamas should have to pay for their own vacations, not force tax payers to do so. I don't know about YOU, but the company I work for doesn't pay for my vacations, especially not half a dozen a year!




loL

SIMPLE MORONS!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 1980 *8.100%*
> 
> 1988-89 *15.020%*
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
Click to expand...



You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?


----------



## francoHFW

thanatos144 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 S+L crisis and the Reagan /Boosh recession ring a bell, dupe? 200 administration pols in jail? Tripling the debt? Another fine mess as seen thru Fox etc etc etc...

All Carter's fault for helping WORTHY minorities, nothing to do with corrupt Boooshies giving mortgages to the      unemployed . RW idiocy lol


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.
> 
> For Example:
> $500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.
> 
> The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.
> 
> Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)
> 
> The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
> - The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!
> 
> There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya/GOP tax cut, which was SUPPOSED to boom the economy and create jobs, cost over $2+ trillion 2001-2009. The Dubya economy lost 1+ million in his 8 years, how much did each job cost Bubs?
Click to expand...

 

you're using a number that represents tax cuts that obama made NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT OF PERMANENT

 every day you embarrass yourself here dad-tard


----------



## bedowin62

francoHFW said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> S+L crisis and the Reagan /Boosh recession ring a bell, dupe? 200 administration pols in jail? Tripling the debt? Another fine mess as seen thru Fox etc etc etc...
> 
> All Carter's fault for helping WORTHY minorities, nothing to do with corrupt Boooshies giving mortgages to the      unemployed . RW idiocy lol
Click to expand...

 

YOU MEAN LIKE THE "KEATING 5" S&L CRISIS???

  where 4 of the 5 were Democrats?
 that crisis idiot?


----------



## bedowin62

left-wing losers come with talking points that dont hold up to scrutiny


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
> How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.
> 
> Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.
Click to expand...


Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs


----------



## bedowin62

obama even EXTENDED the TOP BRACKET  of Bush tax cuts that were going to "sunset" before allowing them to expire

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
Click to expand...


Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
> How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.
> 
> Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs
Click to expand...

 

YAWN
 more emotional hyperbole. are you sure you're a man??


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
Click to expand...



GOP ARE masters of obstruction Bubs. They learned well from the conservatives!


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
Click to expand...

 

hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
Click to expand...

 That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOP ARE masters of obstruction Bubs. They learned well from the conservatives!
Click to expand...

 

Reid held up over 300 bills


stop lying to yourself dummy!!


----------



## bedowin62

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
Click to expand...

 

YAWN
 the Left's open border ideology is more likely to bring us to banana republic status

 keep tryin dullard


----------



## bedowin62

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
Click to expand...

 


"idiots/bigots"

 there goes another left-wing douchebag making accusations he cant back up again

 un-American


----------



## francoHFW

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol
Click to expand...

 That's called respecting a new Pres's mandate, compromise, and good gov't. You wouldn't understand, "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) CHUMP.


----------



## bedowin62

francoHFW said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's called respecting a new Pres's mandate, compromise, and good gov't. You wouldn't understand, "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) CHUMP.
Click to expand...

 

but he didnt have a mandate loser

his electoral victories arent anywhere near the top margins

try again


----------



## bedowin62

LITERALLY telling people to "go sit in the back of the bus" arent the words of somebody wanting to compromise

you're an idiot lying to yourself


----------



## bedowin62

LITERALLY saying "I won" and "Elections have consequences" also arent an indication of a person looking to compromise. compromise takes two sides you idiot

stop lying to yourself


----------



## francoHFW

bedowin62 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YAWN
> the Left's open border ideology is more likely to bring us to banana republic status
> 
> keep tryin dullard
Click to expand...

 
The deporting more than ever, good SS ID to END illegals, solution party? You morons are led by greedy idiot Pubs who LOVE illegals, Terminal chump. This would never end with them. Tough talk, an un-American wall, and plenty of fake IDs for the illegals. YOU'RE a functional MORON. Never learn...Keep the hate, shyttehead. later much


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  You know how it works by now!
> 
> Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.
> 
> Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.
> 
> Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.
> 
> We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.
> 
> Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking
> 
> 
> 
> *"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.*
> 
> 
> FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:
> 
> Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
> 
> FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005
> 
> 
> *The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*
> 
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.
> 
> 
> 
> "Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."
> 
> 
> 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
> 
> *The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street*
> 
> The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street
> 
> 
> *BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.*
> 
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:*
> 
> *2007 $1.3 trillion*
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion*
> 
> *Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?
> 
> 
> *
> Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn.* Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
> 
> 
> http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
> 
> 
> WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD
> 
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly wa*s triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

You are showing more and more how young and stupid you are. The savings and loan scandal was about congress not the president.  Jesus it is sad how misinformation the young are fed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  The wealthy never became wealthier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking
Click to expand...

Actually he spent very little while your democrat congress spent a lot. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized  world.  Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?
> 
> *Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*
> 
> The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. *So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. **So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it*…*Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.*
> 
> 
> Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay *(as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.*
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
> 
> US economy one of the slowest? lol
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure
Click to expand...

That could be because it didn't do as you say 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion
> *
> Over what time frame? As compared to what?
> 
> *which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!
> *
> Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
> What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?
> *
> YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.
> *
> Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.
> 
> *IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!
> *
> Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
Click to expand...


Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> We have a spending problem.  Our tax problem is that our taxes are to high.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


BS.  When I'm making good money my taxes aren't too high.  People who make good money get cocky arrogant and greedy after a while and start resenting the taxes they pay.  Trade with someone who's just getting out of college.  They will gladly pay those taxes and they will save.

You/We have a corrupt government.  It isn't the poor that are bankrupting the country.  It isn't the poor who get richer every time the god damn national debt doubles.  Wake the fuck up people.    

I laugh when I hear someone say their taxes are too high.  Are you rich?  The fuck you winer.  Are you middle class?  Then stop voting GOP.  They aren't going to lower your taxes dummy.  And are you poor?  Then why listen to you?  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
Click to expand...

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
> How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.
> 
> Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs
Click to expand...


Waahhhh. Tissue?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
Click to expand...


I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
> and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
> Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  You know how it works by now!
> 
> Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.
> 
> Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.
> 
> Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.
> 
> We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.
> 
> Whoops!  ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops.  That's Bush's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking
> 
> 
> 
> *"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.*
> 
> 
> FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:
> 
> Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
> 
> FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005
> 
> 
> *The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*
> 
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.
> 
> 
> 
> "Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."
> 
> 
> 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
> 
> *The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street*
> 
> The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street
> 
> 
> *BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. We can change the print, and we've got to.*
> 
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:*
> 
> *2007 $1.3 trillion*
> 
> *Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion*
> 
> *Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?
> 
> 
> *
> Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn.* Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
> 
> 
> http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
> 
> 
> WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD
> 
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly wa*s triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are showing more and more how young and stupid you are. The savings and loan scandal was about congress not the president.  Jesus it is sad how misinformation the young are fed
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Don't understand how Gov't works huh? ANOTHER low info right winger that doesn't understand the Prez has EXECUTIVE Administration *SEC, FBI, HUD, FDIC,  ETC)?




*Mr Gray (Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board)  STARTED warning him in 1984 of problems with the deregulation and oversight of the S&L industry. It's been estimated that 90%+ of the S&L crisis would had been stopped, IF Reagan 'believed in' Gov't over the 'free markets'. *








The federal government -- taxpayers in the end -- were guaranteeing a fast and loose industry.* Almost from the day he assumed control of the federal bank board on May 1, 1983, Mr. Gray had raised the red flag*. But no one -- not Congress,* not the Reagan administration*, not the industry -- listened.

"I was the messenger," Mr. Gray said. "*But they didn't like the message."*

S&l Meltdown








A very bad situation turned into a disaster when the Reagan Administration and congressional leaders refused to tackle the problems and instead decided to let S&Ls with poor management and little or no capital grow their way out of their problems. *In the five-year period from 1984, when I warned Treasury Secretary Jim Baker of the looming S&L crisis,* to 1989, when the first Bush Administration and Congress moved to clean up the S&L mess, the cost of resolution increased nearly 10-fold from an estimated $15 billion to nearly $150 billion (or roughly $450 billion in terms relative to todays federal budget).


The Financial Panic: Never Again














"The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... *the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes*." _The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery: The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry_ by Martin Mayer


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama.  That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually he spent very little while your democrat congress spent a lot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Mythology of Ronnie being fiscally conservative? lol


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized  world.  Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?
> 
> *Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*
> 
> The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. *So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. **So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it*…*Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.*
> 
> 
> Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay *(as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.*
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
> 
> US economy one of the slowest? lol
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That could be because it didn't do as you say
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


More right wing nonsense/babble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And just how did Republicans accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
Click to expand...


* but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
> Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?
Click to expand...


Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
Click to expand...


Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
> Win-win!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
> Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!
Click to expand...


I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion.....so far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> 
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
Click to expand...


Tissue?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.
> 
> Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> 
> Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> 
> 
> Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> 
> Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
> 
> Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> *
> Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.
> 
> However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the  middle class/poor   which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!*
> 
> 
> 
> Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
> 
> Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.*
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> 
> MILLIONAIRES? lol
> 
> Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
Click to expand...



YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...

 So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> 
> 
> *
> More of their money?
> *
> Did I stutter you stupid fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
> Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
> Obama added $7.5 trillion.....so far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?
Click to expand...


Why do low info guys like YOU use NOMINAL numbers versus adjusted like economists look  at it? Oh right to push your ideology over FACTS that Ronnie TRIPLED the US debt of EVERY other US Prez!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years*
> 
> I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!
> 
> *to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!
> *
> Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!
> 
> *Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!
> *
> How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.
> 
> * "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
> *
> So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
> Sounds like a win-win.
> 
> *If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income
> *
> But we're not talking about "other income", are we?
> *
> If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.
> *
> Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
Click to expand...

*
YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
*
Did you ever provide a source for this claim?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...



I get it, destroying your weak talking points is getting you down? Sorry


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For THIRTEEN DAYS*
> 
> We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.
> 
> Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol
Click to expand...


How can you type thru your tears?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates*
> 
> 
> Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, *each*
> 
> 1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> 
> 
> 1990 and later  7.650% (15.3%)
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME
> 
> HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS
> 
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
Click to expand...


Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)
> *
> Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.
> 
> Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
> The rates before then were already law.  5.4% for individuals.
> Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
Click to expand...


Great, so you can provide it again.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
Click to expand...



No, go look for it yourself!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
> How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.
> 
> Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.
Click to expand...

If Democrats teabaggers boehner and McConnell or Tom delay and pedophile Dennis hastert and bush as much as McConnell did harry Reid and pelosi, you repubs wuold be crying like babies.

You hold us to a higher standard because you know most voters don't pay attention enough to know this.

In fact I bet your dumb ass doesn't even know it. Do you?


----------



## dcraelin

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!
> 
> Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
Click to expand...


the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap. 

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that. 

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
Click to expand...

 
great!!! see if you can get raul castro to run on the Dem ticket; he can get a top tax rate like that done!!


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
Click to expand...

 

is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??


----------



## dcraelin

bedowin62 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
Click to expand...


what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
Click to expand...

 
WTF???

 did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?

 straw man?


lol.............................

free college education

amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits

thats just for starters idiot


----------



## Dad2three

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
Click to expand...



Reagan stopped the credit card interest deductions, but left the mortgage interest deductions UNLIMITED and even for second homes? lol

END tax loopholes that benefit the rich, PRIMARY residence ONLY deduction AND cap it at $1,000,000 value (adjust it for inflation)!


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
Click to expand...

 
"universal" health care

costly mandates on the coal and oiil industries
obamacare Medicaid subsidy will phase out in a few years
any number of "infrastructure" bills

obama has a plan for  FREE SOLAR PANELS

ur a joke


----------



## dcraelin

bedowin62 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
Click to expand...


im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself. 

I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan stopped the credit card interest deductions, but left the mortgage interest deductions UNLIMITED and even for second homes? lol
> 
> END tax loopholes that benefit the rich, PRIMARY residence ONLY deduction AND cap it at $1,000,000 value (adjust it for inflation)!
Click to expand...

 
reagan was an amazing dude. but HOW did he get all those Democrats in his Congress to go along with all that leftard???????

inquiring minds want to know!!


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan stopped the credit card interest deductions, but left the mortgage interest deductions UNLIMITED and even for second homes? lol
> 
> END tax loopholes that benefit the rich, PRIMARY residence ONLY deduction AND cap it at $1,000,000 value (adjust it for inflation)!
Click to expand...


I'd take the cap way way down to 250,000 ...if that.


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
Click to expand...

 
dont be a dunce yourself leftard; show where those costs are "overblown" or STFU ok?


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
Click to expand...

 

*Democrats Are Crafting A Plan For Tuition-Free College*
elitedaily.com/news/politics/*democrats*-plan...*free*-*college*/1134265/

Cached
Jul 22, 2015 - In the last two presidential elections, we have seen just how powerful young people can be when deciding the direction of the country.


----------



## bedowin62

*Democrats Float Bill for Free Community College*
www.thinkadvisor.com/.../*democrats*-float-bill-for-*free*-community-*colle*...

Cached
Jul 8, 2015 - Currently Tennessee, led by *Republicans*, and Chicago *offer free* community *college* tuition. Oregon's Legislature just passed a bill that will do ...


----------



## dcraelin

bedowin62 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont be a dunce yourself leftard; show where those costs are "overblown" or STFU ok?
Click to expand...


u r the asss that brought it up, you prove it.............or STFU ok


----------



## bedowin62

*Amnesty makes illegals eligible for all Social Security ...*
www.washingtontimes.com/.../*amnesty*-*makes*-ille...

Cached
The Washington Times
Loading...
Mar 13, 2015 - *Amnesty makes* illegals *eligible* for all *Social Security* benefits: report ... Mr. Obama's November policy could apply to as many as 4 *million* ...


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont be a dunce yourself leftard; show where those costs are "overblown" or STFU ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> u r the asss that brought it up, you prove it.............or STFU ok
Click to expand...

 

i already have idiot

lol


----------



## bedowin62

*Obama's Amnesty Order Gives Medicaid And Social ...*
downtrend.com/.../obamas-*amnesty*-order-gives-medicaid-and-*social*-*sec*...

Cached
Similar
Nov 25, 2014 - However, these legal illegal aliens *will qualify* for Medicaid, which is ... Under President Obama's new *program* to protect *millions* of illegal immigrants from deportation, many of those affected *will* be *eligible* to receive *Social Security*, ... *will* not be paying any income tax because they don't *make* enough ...


----------



## dcraelin

bedowin62 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> what has the left promised?............are you pumping up your straw man again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont be a dunce yourself leftard; show where those costs are "overblown" or STFU ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> u r the asss that brought it up, you prove it.............or STFU ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i already have idiot
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


eligible....for social security......thats your worry..........they pay in....they get out............so...again...........STFU


----------



## bedowin62

*Study: Qualifiers of Obama's Immigration Program Could ...*
dailysignal.com/.../study-qualifiers-of-obamas-immigration-*program*-*will*...

Cached
Mar 18, 2015 - Based on that assumption, if 3.97 *million* illegal immigrant parents *earn* legal protection, ... They also immediately are *eligible* for two cash welfare *programs*: the ... “on the books” *will* add $7.2 billion per year in *Social Security* and federal ... to reapply for the *program*—to eventually *earn* health care benefits.


----------



## bedowin62

dcraelin said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> did you REALLY JUST ASK THAT?
> 
> straw man?
> 
> 
> lol.............................
> 
> free college education
> 
> amnesty for 12 million, entitling them to billions in safety net benefits
> 
> thats just for starters idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im more with trump on immigration, but the  cost of the folks already here in "safety benefits" is overblown by dunces such as yourself.
> 
> I dont believe anyone...not even Sanders is promising free college education....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont be a dunce yourself leftard; show where those costs are "overblown" or STFU ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> u r the asss that brought it up, you prove it.............or STFU ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i already have idiot
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eligible....for social security......thats your worry..........they pay in....they get out............so...again...........STFU
Click to expand...

 
NOT NECESSARILY YOU DULLARD


 try again


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized  world.  Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


We went from being the country that manufactures for the rest of the world and everyone owed us money.

I can show you a million pork projects that could be cut but those are projects that go to the rich. End time first before you go after things like social security. 

We aren't the superpower anymore. Let that shit go. Cut our military down to Australia or Canada levels.

And who owns the federal reserve? Private bankers. They love the debt. They own us. And there isn't a politician who will admit it except

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. So vote bernie


----------



## bedowin62

*Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and ...*
www.heritage.org/.../*social*-*security*-trustees-rep...

Cached
Similar
The Heritage Foundation
Loading...
Aug 4, 2014 - *Social Security* ran a $71 billion deficit in 2013, closing out four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program's *unfunded obligations* ...


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made
> Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the link I shared about how much Norway has in the bank? Care to respond?

But then I notice you guys like to compare the USA to other economies until you don't like the results then you understand its not apples to apples.

We have large ghettos and prisons. Those things cost money. How do you solve that? More jobs and better schools and more police. In other words regulate industry better and definitely raise taxes on the rich.


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> *Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and ...*
> www.heritage.org/.../*social*-*security*-trustees-rep...
> 
> Cached
> Similar
> The Heritage Foundation
> Loading...
> Aug 4, 2014 - *Social Security* ran a $71 billion deficit in 2013, closing out four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program's *unfunded obligations* ...


That's a right wing conservative group of greedy rich people. F heritage.


----------



## bedowin62

sealybobo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and ...*
> www.heritage.org/.../*social*-*security*-trustees-rep...
> 
> Cached
> Similar
> The Heritage Foundation
> Loading...
> Aug 4, 2014 - *Social Security* ran a $71 billion deficit in 2013, closing out four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program's *unfunded obligations* ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a right wing conservative group of greedy rich people. F heritage.
Click to expand...

 

great idiot. just remember you had nothing but to attack the messenger the next time you source HuffPo, or Factcheck.org, or Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC.....ETC?>???????


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark
Click to expand...

Toddsterpatriot says what?


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and ...*
> www.heritage.org/.../*social*-*security*-trustees-rep...
> 
> Cached
> Similar
> The Heritage Foundation
> Loading...
> Aug 4, 2014 - *Social Security* ran a $71 billion deficit in 2013, closing out four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program's *unfunded obligations* ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a right wing conservative group of greedy rich people. F heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> great idiot. just remember you had nothing but to attack the messenger the next time you source HuffPo, or Factcheck.org, or Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC.....ETC?>???????
Click to expand...

I know what their position is. Are you rich? Then fine, heritage is the way to go. If you aren't rich, wake the f up.

Here's the difference. I can dig and find where this report is only half the story. Can you say huffpo stories are half truths like what we get with fox rush and heritage?


----------



## sealybobo

bedowin62 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and ...*
> www.heritage.org/.../*social*-*security*-trustees-rep...
> 
> Cached
> Similar
> The Heritage Foundation
> Loading...
> Aug 4, 2014 - *Social Security* ran a $71 billion deficit in 2013, closing out four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program's *unfunded obligations* ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a right wing conservative group of greedy rich people. F heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> great idiot. just remember you had nothing but to attack the messenger the next time you source HuffPo, or Factcheck.org, or Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC.....ETC?>???????
Click to expand...


And it's true. The politicians borrowed from ss and we don't have enough workers to fund all the retired baby boomers. We know these things. It's what the heritage fund wants to do about it I disagree with.

Do you know what they want to do? You should if you are a spokesperson. Tell us what they/you are proposing we do about it?


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs
Click to expand...


"Facts" from ThinkProgress.org, FactLeft.com, AmericansForTaxFairness, and WorkersParadise.com are suspect at best and a kind of loony leftist lunacy at worst.
You're a 1-trick propaganda robot, Princess, and considering how little positive response you get here, not a very good one.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses. Win-win!!!
> 
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
Click to expand...

Snide, stupid and arrogant! Yup, you're obviously a full-fledged a loony leftist.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Facts" from ThinkProgress.org, FactLeft.com, AmericansForTaxFairness, and WorkersParadise.com are suspect at best and a kind of loony leftist lunacy at worst.
> You're a 1-trick propaganda robot, Princess, and considering how little positive response you get here, not a very good one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses. Win-win!!!
> 
> 
> 
> More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snide, stupid and arrogant! Yup, you're obviously a full-fledged a loony leftist.
Click to expand...




So NO, you can't refute FACTS. Got it


----------



## boedicca

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
Click to expand...



I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Facts" from ThinkProgress.org, FactLeft.com, AmericansForTaxFairness, and WorkersParadise.com are suspect at best and a kind of loony leftist lunacy at worst.
> You're a 1-trick propaganda robot, Princess, and considering how little positive response you get here, not a very good one.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Gee, I'm so surprised you would have "ridicule retort" in your stash. My guess is you keep it close by as you probably need to use it regularly. You seem to think others are required to take you and your Socialists-R-Us.com silliness seriously you arrogant twit but here's the 4-1-1 ... you're not nearly as sharp as you want or need to believe.


----------



## boedicca

bedowin62 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
Click to expand...



If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.


Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
Click to expand...


LIKE THIS:


EFFECTIVE TAX RATES


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Facts" from ThinkProgress.org, FactLeft.com, AmericansForTaxFairness, and WorkersParadise.com are suspect at best and a kind of loony leftist lunacy at worst.
> You're a 1-trick propaganda robot, Princess, and considering how little positive response you get here, not a very good one.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I'm so surprised you would have "ridicule retort" in your stash. My guess is you keep it close by as you probably need to use it regularly. You seem to think others are required to take you and your Socialists-R-Us.com silliness seriously you arrogant twit but here's the 4-1-1 ... you're not nearly as sharp as you want or need to believe.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.
> 
> 
> Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Click to expand...


Or we could just go back to tax rates where 0he middle class grew AND the EFFECTIVE tax rates WERE MUCH GREATER. What did we do with that money? Oh yeah, fought and nearly paid off ALL WW2 war debt, built the interstate system, thousands of schools, bridges and other infrastructure!


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIKE THIS:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
Click to expand...



Which means absolutely nothing other than that you found a bogus chart that agrees with your worldview.

Take a look at tax receipts as a percent of GDP - that tells a more revealing story.   But I bet your won't understand why.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIKE THIS:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which means absolutely nothing other than that you found a bogus chart that agrees with your worldview.
> 
> Take a look at tax receipts as a percent of GDP - that tells a more revealing story.   But I bet your won't understand why.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubba, you want to cherry pick AND not accept the tax burden WAS pushed to the middle class AS the Norquista's shifted the burden from those "job creators" right?

Yep, percent of GDP IS how economists measure the tax burden, BUT the tax burden on the top 1% hasn't been this low since BEFORE Harding/Coolidge great depression. Weird right?



Hint Ronnie GUTTED tax revenues AS he cut taxes for the rich, increased it on the average worker AND spent like crazy

Dubya made Ronnie look like a fiscal conservative!!!


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIKE THIS:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which means absolutely nothing other than that you found a bogus chart that agrees with your worldview.
> 
> Take a look at tax receipts as a percent of GDP - that tells a more revealing story.   But I bet your won't understand why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, you want to cherry pick AND not accept the tax burden WAS pushed to the middle class AS the Norquista's shifted the burden from those "job creators" right?
> 
> Yep, percent of GDP IS how economists measure the tax burden, BUT the tax burden on the top 1% hasn't been this low since BEFORE Harding/Coolidge great depression. Weird right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hint Ronnie GUTTED tax revenues AS he cut taxes for the rich, increased it on the average worker AND spent like crazy
> 
> Dubya made Ronnie look like a fiscal conservative!!!
Click to expand...



Oh, dunderhead, the trend is that more and more of the income tax burden has been shifted upward.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIKE THIS:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which means absolutely nothing other than that you found a bogus chart that agrees with your worldview.
> 
> Take a look at tax receipts as a percent of GDP - that tells a more revealing story.   But I bet your won't understand why.
Click to expand...








The top graph shows the average (EFFECTIVE) tax rate since the 1940s for the Top 0.01% of income earners (in 2010, the approximately 15,000 returns reporting more than $8 million dollars in income). 

Historical Tax Rates of Top 0.01%


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIKE THIS:
> 
> 
> EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which means absolutely nothing other than that you found a bogus chart that agrees with your worldview.
> 
> Take a look at tax receipts as a percent of GDP - that tells a more revealing story.   But I bet your won't understand why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, you want to cherry pick AND not accept the tax burden WAS pushed to the middle class AS the Norquista's shifted the burden from those "job creators" right?
> 
> Yep, percent of GDP IS how economists measure the tax burden, BUT the tax burden on the top 1% hasn't been this low since BEFORE Harding/Coolidge great depression. Weird right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hint Ronnie GUTTED tax revenues AS he cut taxes for the rich, increased it on the average worker AND spent like crazy
> 
> Dubya made Ronnie look like a fiscal conservative!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, dunderhead, the trend is that more and more of the income tax burden has been shifted upward.
Click to expand...


You mean as more and more burden was put on other sources of revenues, like the PAYROLL TRUST FUNDS that are owed $3+ trillion???


Income tax burden? Way less than half of ALL US revenues


----------



## sealybobo

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators.  Democrats started this mess. Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like.  I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Facts" from ThinkProgress.org, FactLeft.com, AmericansForTaxFairness, and WorkersParadise.com are suspect at best and a kind of loony leftist lunacy at worst.
> You're a 1-trick propaganda robot, Princess, and considering how little positive response you get here, not a very good one.
Click to expand...

Debunk their facts once before deciding.

I've looked into your sources and they are proven to be fos.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple:   A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.
> 
> Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
Click to expand...


We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.  

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.  

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.


----------



## boedicca

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
Click to expand...



And, if one is a higher income middle class taxpayer, the AMT wipes out some of the tax deductions anyway.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol



Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if one is a higher income middle class taxpayer, the AMT wipes out some of the tax deductions anyway.
Click to expand...


Alternative MINIMUM tax? Weird the GOP will not fix it? LOL


----------



## dcraelin

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you look at the tax bracket to which that 91% applied on an inflation adjusted basis - and understand that there were far more generous deductions back then...
Click to expand...


youll have to supply that info if your going to argue it......I seem to recall recent additions to the standard deduction...so that part has gotten bigger not smaller with time...

there were loopholes and deductions then yes....but generally there were less back then even with the higher rates.


----------



## dcraelin

boedicca said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.
> 
> 
> Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
Click to expand...


you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.


----------



## dcraelin

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd  be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
Click to expand...


well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.   

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.


----------



## Arizona Willie

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more. 

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.

And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses cause they don't NEED to


----------



## Arizona Willie

Ray From Cleveland said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
Click to expand...

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that why?  (LOL)
> 
> Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government?  Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?
> 
> *The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.*
> 
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *filibuster-proof, super majority *for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
> 
> It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
> 
> The Truth is that the Democrats *only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,* insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during *six years* of Republican control. Here are the details:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a *_*filibuster-proof, super majority *_*for two years between 2008 and 2010.
> *
> Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
> How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.
> 
> Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Democrats teabaggers boehner and McConnell or Tom delay and pedophile Dennis hastert and bush as much as McConnell did harry Reid and pelosi, you repubs wuold be crying like babies.
> 
> You hold us to a higher standard because you know most voters don't pay attention enough to know this.
> 
> In fact I bet your dumb ass doesn't even know it. Do you?
Click to expand...


Try that again, in English? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
> Just awful, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dcraelin said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
Click to expand...



*Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM

Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.

In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.

It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.

Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship

This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction. 

When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.

Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action? 

So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it. 

So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather. 

Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Click to expand...



Yanno, you call Ray the DUMMY yet you have simply reiterated what he said.
A $10,000 deduction isn't $10,000 off one's tax burden but rather is $10,000 off one's taxable income, lowering one's tax liability by their Marginal Tax Rate which,at 10% would be a $1,000 savings (10%x$10,000).

The more I read from all you loony lefties here the more I realize just how clueless you are. CLUELESS.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates.  A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Click to expand...


Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.


----------



## SAYIT

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.
> 
> 
> Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.
Click to expand...


BINGO! That is what makes our tax system so "progressive" and also explains why the top 25% of all American earners carry 86% of the total fed income tax load while the bottom 49% pay NOTHING ... NADA ... ZILCH!

They get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax but the issue for the loony lefties here is that ZILCH is too much for low earners to contribute and 86% is too small a share for our top 25%.

So where do you come down on the issue? Is 86% enough? If not what would be enough?
96%?
106%?


----------



## SAYIT

Arizona Willie said:


> When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.
> 
> The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.
> 
> Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.
> 
> Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.
> 
> 1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.
> 
> 2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.
> 
> If a man has 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.
> 
> If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.
> 
> He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.
> 
> He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.
> 
> Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.
> 
> But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.
> 
> The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.
> 
> Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.
> 
> And, if being given money discourages the poor from working, giving money to the rich discourages them from opening new businesses cause they don't NEED to



Now see if you can figure out what about the global economy allowed for our go-go economy in the 50s & 60s - certainly not the 70s - and what changed to bring it all to an end.
BTW, posting your Socialists-R-Us.com agitprop in large font or *bold* makes it no more credible than it is when regular-sized.


----------



## SAYIT

Arizona Willie said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
Click to expand...


Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION which he used  to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich, is noted Bubs. Perhaps stop lying about the REAL numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
Click to expand...


Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
Click to expand...


"it' believed", 3,000 from one year to 3,500 the next? lol  3,500???? 


DON'T REMEMBER THE SWISS BANKING SCANDALS WHERE THOUSANDS OF "JOB CREATORS" HELD BILLIONS OFF SHORE, EVADING TAXES AND YET SETTLED FOR BILLIONS??? 

No 90% WASN'T the effective rate, BUT it was an EFFECTIVE rate of 60%-70% on the top 1/100th of 1% from 1932-1980!!!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
Click to expand...



True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YOUR inability to accept Ronnie increased SS taxes by $2.7+ TRILLION
> *
> Did you ever provide a source for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
Click to expand...

*
like your creative math on SS tax rates
*
Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is there a rate that will pay for everything the Left is promising? would that 91% do the trick genius??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you tax 100%, that should take care of the government's appetite for about one year.
> 
> 
> Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be one of those people that doesnt understand marginal rates.....the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first 30000 say...it is only on the last dollars earned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BINGO! That is what makes our tax system so "progressive" and also explains why the top 25% of all American earners carry 86% of the total fed income tax load while the bottom 49% pay NOTHING ... NADA ... ZILCH!
> 
> They get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay federal income tax but the issue for the loony lefties here is that ZILCH is too much for low earners to contribute and 86% is too small a share for our top 25%.
> 
> So where do you come down on the issue? Is 86% enough? If not what would be enough?
> 96%?
> 106%?
Click to expand...



MORE right wing garbage. Those  "lucky Duckies" at the bottom 50% DO PAY OTHER TAXES ON THEIR 11% OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED, AS DROP FROM NEARLY 18% IN 1980, A CUT FRO  OF ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY (COULD THEY AFFORD INCOME TAXES THEN??) TO THEIR LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY INCOME?


Those top 25% of families, 34 million families, MADE 70% OF ALL INCOME BUBS!


PROGRESSIVE? lol

But in sum, the nation’s tax system is barely progressive. *Those who advocate for top-heavy tax cuts and erroneously claim the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring  other taxes that Americans pay*. As the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2015 is roughly equal to their total share of income. 
Who Pays Taxes in America in 2015? | CTJReports


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
Click to expand...



Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, UNLIKE you, I've backed up EVERYTHING I posit Bubs. Go look
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
Click to expand...




Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED

FICA & SECA Tax Rates


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you type thru your tears?
Click to expand...

 We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*



All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, so you can provide it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Click to expand...


Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.*
> 
> 59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you type thru your tears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.
Click to expand...


Waaaah, Obama couldn't succeed with only 59 votes in the Senate.
Poor baby.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you type thru your tears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaah, Obama couldn't succeed with only 59 votes in the Senate.
> Poor baby.
Click to expand...

 Just the best economy in the world, with no Pub bubble like W and Raygun. You wouldn't understand, chump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
Click to expand...


Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?  

Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
Click to expand...


That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing? 

When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
Click to expand...


Dad clearly prefers the former ... eating the loss. At least he would require "the rich" to do so.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
> basically zero.
> 
> Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*
> 
> Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
> _
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> _
> Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
> 
> And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
> 
> A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
> 
> A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
> 
> And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
> Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you start with  a LIE?
> 
> *"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."*
> 
> 
> The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of  the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
> 
> Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, *which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.*
> 
> *“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.*
> 
> The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted* “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.*”
> 
> Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better,* at least initially, *under the Alternate Plan.
> 
> ..*..The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan*, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
> 
> Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits.* When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.*
> 
> Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, *ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.*
> 
> “It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


What?

My first wife died 7 years ago I didn't get a dime of her SS money...


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to  move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you type thru your tears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waaaah, Obama couldn't succeed with only 59 votes in the Senate.
> Poor baby.
Click to expand...

 Poor nonrich and country you mean, with your party/greedy rich first heroes blocking reform and full recovery, 2nd grade level thinker. lol argghh...


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need  some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say we didn't, did I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.
> 
> I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you look at the link I shared about how much Norway has in the bank? Care to respond?
> 
> But then I notice you guys like to compare the USA to other economies until you don't like the results then you understand its not apples to apples.
> 
> We have large ghettos and prisons. Those things cost money. How do you solve that? More jobs and better schools and more police. In other words regulate industry better and definitely raise taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...


Greece and Japan are looking pretty sad, maybe if they hoarded money like Norway and Americas rich, they wouldn't be in such dire straits.

Should Norway pay Greece and Japan's debt?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
> How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
> 96%?
> 106%
Click to expand...



Good little skippy, ignore that the bottom 50% make LESS THAN AN AVERAGE OF $15,000 PER FAMILY, and whine about the PART of tax revenues that run Gov't. Typical of you to ignore the evidence that the TOTAL TAX BURDEN IN THE US IS BARELY PROGRESSIVE. Fukkin ideologue!


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
Click to expand...



Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates


----------



## Dad2three

bear513 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
> *
> Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
> Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
> That doesn't seem fair, does it?
> 
> *PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
> *
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans.  And then there’s Social Security.
> 
> But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
> Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession.  If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
> 
> Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model.  That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
> 
> 
> Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options.  Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad.  It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
> 
> But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.”  Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
> 
> The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money.  Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well.  Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent.  The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent.  Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
> 
> Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share).  Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done.  So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
> 
> But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account.  When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security.  And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
> 
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> 
> 
> How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security *
> 
> * Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle*
> 
> 
> *Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.*
> 
> 
> *Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan*
> 
> *Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan*
> 
> 
> ·  *Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested.* Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, *workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security*
> 
> Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
> 
> 
> "The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while *Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."*
> 
> Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
> 
> 
> In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: *The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. *Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
> 
> “If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative*. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”*
> 
> 
> Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:*
> 
> Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
> _
> Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000.  That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
> _
> Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
> 
> And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security.  For example:
> 
> A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
> 
> A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
> 
> And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
> Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you start with  a LIE?
> 
> *"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."*
> 
> 
> The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of  the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
> 
> Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, *which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.*
> 
> *“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.*
> 
> The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted* “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.*”
> 
> Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better,* at least initially, *under the Alternate Plan.
> 
> ..*..The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan*, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
> 
> Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits.* When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.*
> 
> Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, *ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.*
> 
> “It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> My first wife died 7 years ago I didn't get a dime of her SS money...
Click to expand...


Liar


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
> How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
> 96%?
> 106%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good little skippy, ignore that the bottom 50% make LESS THAN AN AVERAGE OF $15,000 PER FAMILY, and whine about the PART of tax revenues that run Gov't. Typical of you to ignore the evidence that the TOTAL TAX BURDEN IN THE US IS BARELY PROGRESSIVE. Fukkin ideologue!
Click to expand...



The irony is thick with you and you are still dodging the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dad clearly prefers the former ... eating the loss. At least he would require "the rich" to do so.
Click to expand...



Nope, unlike what the moron posited, I can't just charge more BECAUSE my costs increase, it has to do with SUPPLY/DEMAND thing you Knlowns espouse!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
Click to expand...



REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
Click to expand...



Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
> How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
> 96%?
> 106%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good little skippy, ignore that the bottom 50% make LESS THAN AN AVERAGE OF $15,000 PER FAMILY, and whine about the PART of tax revenues that run Gov't. Typical of you to ignore the evidence that the TOTAL TAX BURDEN IN THE US IS BARELY PROGRESSIVE. Fukkin ideologue!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is thick with you and you are still dodging the question:
> How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
> 96%?
> 106%
Click to expand...




Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates! 



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!



stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Click to expand...



Rate for employees and employers, each

* OASDI* *HI* *Total*
1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700

1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.


..

That's exactly what I think they are. And no, for an average home owner, they're not that much. But for the banksters selling mortgages, a few percentage points adds up to a lot of money.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> 
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
Click to expand...


Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





_*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*



*The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*

*Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubs, sure, they just capture Gov't BECAUSE they enjoy the power???? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
Click to expand...


*Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
*
Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

*AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
*
We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

*but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
*
LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

*One was "bracket creep,"*

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.


----------



## Dad2three

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
Click to expand...


Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!


----------



## francoHFW

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
Click to expand...

 Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
Click to expand...


Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it's not really a flat tax system then.  Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS.  In other words, nothing would change.  A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field.  That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax.  There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all.  Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table.  A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
> 
> 
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
Click to expand...


Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
Click to expand...


When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
Click to expand...


Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
Click to expand...


True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
Click to expand...


Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.


----------



## francoHFW

ACT


SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
Click to expand...

 ACTUALLY, dingbat dupe, I see what pander to the greedy racist idiot rich POLICIES have done to the nonrich and the country, and argue for fixing them, you brainwashed, ignorant, functional moron. Try thinking about the facts and good policy for a change, and not stupid gossip your masters use to distract and divide the dupes like you.

All the richest get is 95% of new wealth. 55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT. The poor are poor because Reaganist America doesn't pay or train them while the country falls apart. Shortsighted, selfish stupidity.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor...
> 
> 
> 
> ...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...
Click to expand...


I call BULLSHIT!
So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?


----------



## dcraelin

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock.  We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
Click to expand...


good riddance


----------



## SAYIT

dcraelin said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Yes it is.  Example.  If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
> 
> If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
> 
> We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates.  You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good riddance
Click to expand...


Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
Click to expand...


Liberals hate facts, especially the stupid ones.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
Click to expand...


I beat him like a rented mule.
He needs to get his ADHD treated.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACT
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BULLSHIT!
> So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?
Click to expand...

Oh, everyone BUT your propaganda service, functional shyttehead...


*Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income ...*
www.reuters.com/.../2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations...
Cached
Aug 11, 2008 · Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes. WASHINGTON. A man holds a wad of money in an undated file photo. Reuters/File.
*U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less -...*
www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
May 01, 2011 · ... United States corporations pay only ... that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal ... way it taxes corporations. ...


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat him like a rented mule.
> He needs to get his ADHD treated.
Click to expand...

 You are totally FOS. Unbelievable. Send up a flare when you have something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat him like a rented mule.
> He needs to get his ADHD treated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally FOS. Unbelievable. Send up a flare when you have something.
Click to expand...


Reagan's Social Security reform boosted rates less than 1%. Whiney bitch, I mean whiney dad, claimed he raised them 3%. He had other huge errors in his rants, but that's one simple enough for you to understand.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACT
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BULLSHIT!
> So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, everyone BUT your propaganda service, functional shyttehead...
> 
> 
> *Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income ...*
Click to expand...



So why must you LLs always lie. Is it genetic? Were you born that way or is it something learned? From you source:

"The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes *for at least one year between 1998 and 2005*."

There are dozens of legit reasons why a corp would *owe no fed tax* in a given year. You claimed "55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes," ... IDIOT. As I stated, that was and remains UTTER BS.


----------



## SAYIT

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat him like a rented mule.
> He needs to get his ADHD treated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally FOS. Unbelievable. Send up a flare when you have something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan's Social Security reform boosted rates less than 1%. Whiney bitch, I mean whiney dad, claimed he raised them 3%. He had other huge errors in his rants, but that's one simple enough for you to understand.
Click to expand...


Um ... no, it's not.
Like 1% and Dad2 and Frigidweirdo, FrancoDupe is a hard core loony leftist (see: Greece) who can not or will not understand anything that doesn't serve his idiotology.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACT
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BULLSHIT!
> So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, everyone BUT your propaganda service, functional shyttehead...
> 
> 
> *Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income ...*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why must you LLs always lie. Is it genetic? Were you born that way or is it something learned? From you source:
> 
> "The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes *for at least one year between 1998 and 2005*."
> 
> There are dozens of legit reasons why a corp would *owe no fed tax* in a given year. You claimed "55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes," ... IDIOT. As I stated, that was and remains UTTER BS.
Click to expand...


I've seen moldy bread that's smarter than old franco.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
> 
> Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
> 
> LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
Click to expand...



Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> =================
> True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
> So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
Click to expand...



MORE right wing noise NOT based in FACTS. Shocking


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rate for employees and employers, each
> 
> * OASDI* *HI* *Total*
> 1982-83                   5.400    1.300   6.700
> 
> 1990 and later         6.200     1.450  7.650
> 
> That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
> And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
> between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> 
> AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Tax Cuts*._ One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
> 
> *The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase*. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes _even though_ the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. *The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.*
> 
> *Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since*, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't _called_ tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
> 
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol
> *
> Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?
> 
> *AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??
> *
> We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.
> 
> *but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.
> *
> LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.
> 
> *One was "bracket creep,"*
> 
> Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
Click to expand...



One day I'll have a stroke that one of you Klowns is honest and isn't sucking off the plutocrats...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the poor _and_ the bottom 49% of all American earners pay _no federal personal income tax_ at all so how much does it hurt them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
Click to expand...



Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
Click to expand...



Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol

Dumbass

NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
Click to expand...


Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'll have a stroke that one of you Klowns is honest and isn't sucking off the plutocrats...
Click to expand...


PLUTOCRATS! BANKSTERS! EVIL CAPITALISTS!
Loony leftists all sound like broken records and yeah, given your overly-strident disdain for the financially successful, I'd say a stroke may well be in your future. Take a chill pill.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
> 
> businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
> 
> the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
Click to expand...


SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
Click to expand...


Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
> As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'll have a stroke that one of you Klowns is honest and isn't sucking off the plutocrats...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLUTOCRATS! BANKSTERS! EVIL CAPITALISTS!
> Loony leftists all sound like broken records and yeah, given your overly-strident disdain for the financially successful, I'd say a stroke may well be in your future. Take a chill pill.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
Click to expand...


Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased. 

LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country.  Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
> 
> Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area.  Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
> 
> Tax write-offs are not what you think they are.  If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00  that I saved with the write-off.  It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter.  In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
Click to expand...


From the article:
"It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."

Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
Click to expand...


Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
Those who can't stand the heat...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> 
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
Click to expand...

]
IT'S BELIEVED? Hint the dumbass writer doesn't even know they track the people giving up their passports AND his assumptions on the 3,000 was wrong so you want me to believe HIS "BELIEFS" ARE CORRECT ON THIS? LOL



Sorry Bubs, FAIL


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
Click to expand...


Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
Click to expand...

When the lease runs out they will... and government isn't the answer.  To many of you fascists are popping up.  Our schools have become the enemy 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the lease runs out they will... and government isn't the answer.  To many of you fascists are popping up.  Our schools have become the enemy
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



lol, I forgot, the rules of supply and demand end when a lease ends *shaking head*



The enemy, like ALWAYS are the conservatives, they are NEVER on the correct side of history, EVER. Fucknn pukes!


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> [
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol


rich people are rich because they are smarter, more industrious and network better than the whining losers who complain about the rich.  No matter what the government, there are always rich,  and there are alway scalded monkeys whining about them


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.
> 
> as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
Click to expand...

MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the lease runs out they will... and government isn't the answer.  To many of you fascists are popping up.  Our schools have become the enemy
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I forgot, the rules of supply and demand end when a lease ends *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> The enemy, like ALWAYS are the conservatives, they are NEVER on the correct side of history, EVER. Fucknn pukes!
Click to expand...

Coming from you  a guy who supports the party of slavery ? Lol that's rich 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## francoHFW

The racists moved over to the GOP after 1964, dumbass. You people live on planet stupid.  lol


----------



## francoHFW

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
> 
> 
> 
> rich people are rich because they are smarter, more industrious and network better than the whining losers who complain about the rich.  No matter what the government, there are always rich,  and there are alway scalded monkeys whining about them
Click to expand...

 And mainly because Reaganists rigged the country. Jeebus what a twit...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
Click to expand...


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y8VaqBpkx...AAvCA/i6Ic99EBV0w/s1600/120426-fair-share.gif


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
Click to expand...


*The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes*
Jane Wells | @janewells
Wednesday, 11 Dec 2013 | 11:56 AM ET

_Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent. 

You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero. 

It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures. 

(Read more: New budget deal will pass, says GOP congressman) 

How does someone pay negative taxes? The CBO's formula offsets whatever taxes are paid with "refundable tax credits." Some of these are due to "government transfers" of money back to the taxpayer in the form of social security and food stamps. 

That's not to say the rich are going broke. Hardly. 

According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since the stock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip_


----------



## boedicca

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship*
> Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM
> 
> Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.
> 
> In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.
> 
> It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.
> 
> Read the rest at:   Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.
> 
> When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person.  I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.
> 
> Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead.  What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?
> 
> So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government.  Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.
> 
> So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%?  Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate.  Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today.  If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's,  I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems.  That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.
> 
> Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype.  Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings.  Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam.  No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
Click to expand...



Uh.  Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are just used to the Democrat way.  You know, keep running your industry at a loss until you lose everything.  After all, that's what the Democrats are doing to our country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
Click to expand...


There is only one way government policy can help the rich: GTF out of the way.  That's it.


----------



## SAYIT

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes*
> Jane Wells | @janewells
> Wednesday, 11 Dec 2013 | 11:56 AM ET
> 
> _Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.
> 
> You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero.
> 
> It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.
> 
> (Read more: New budget deal will pass, says GOP congressman)
> 
> How does someone pay negative taxes? The CBO's formula offsets whatever taxes are paid with "refundable tax credits." Some of these are due to "government transfers" of money back to the taxpayer in the form of social security and food stamps.
> 
> That's not to say the rich are going broke. Hardly.
> 
> According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since the stock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.
> 
> Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip_
Click to expand...


For the loony leftists, 100% just isn't enough.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
Click to expand...


Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.  

But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y8VaqBpkx...AAvCA/i6Ic99EBV0w/s1600/120426-fair-share.gif
Click to expand...

AGAIN, fed income taxes, all dupes can think about lol. Payroll taxes are just as much now... state  and local taxes are paid  mostly by nonrich, the ridiculous fees ALL by the nonrich. Your link is STUPID.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for informing me of that.  I've only been a landlord now for 25 years.  It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!
Click to expand...


I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.  

From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run.  If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills.  He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes  THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
Click to expand...


Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
Click to expand...


We don't have training and education now?  More people in college than ever before, and yet, more adults living with their parents than ever before as well.  Infrastructure?   You do know that is provided by fuel taxes and state, don't you? 

So when are you libs going to lower the price of advanced education so we get all this training you speak of?  Most all colleges are run by liberals.  The lower priced ones are run by government.  But that's Reagan's fault too, huh?


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
Click to expand...


Yeah, gov't policy does absolutely nothing for the poor.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
Click to expand...


Loony leftist BS.
Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
It's free.
It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
Click to expand...


Agreed. 

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade. 

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.  

He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too. 

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.


----------



## SAYIT

It doesn't matter how little college costs or the fact that well-intentioned rich guys try to make a difference. You can't force disinterested people to accept a golden opportunity if they know a non-productive free-ride is the option:

June 19, 1987. On the stage in the hot auditorium of the Belmont Elementary School in West Philadelphia were 112 students, all of them black, all between eleven and fourteen years old, most from families on public assistance. For some reason unknown to them, their graduation from sixth grade was being recorded by TV cameras and attended by Philadelphia dignitaries. Diane Weiss, a woman they had never seen before, took the stage, threw a football at them, and announced in breathless, quivering tones that she and her husband, George, would send them all to college—free.

The students, for the most part, were baffled. But their parents and teachers were not. The room erupted in cheers and tears as they recognized the import of this extraordinary offer. Nothing seemed impossible at that moment—not even the notion that 112 children from this tragically blighted pocket of Philadelphia could beat the odds and go to college.

Twelve years later, George Weiss—who could not attend the announcement himself because of a bad back—has spent more than $5 million on these students, for tutoring, counseling, social services, and college expenses. By some analysts’ reckoning, what he’s gotten for his money—so far, eleven Bachelor’s degrees, two Associate’s degrees, and seven vocational certificates—isn’t much.

The $5 Million Lesson | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable


----------



## francoHFW

WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?


----------



## francoHFW

WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?


SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
Click to expand...

 Shytty jobs with dying wage, public college costs doubled just under W, guns everywhere. Great job! Speaking of PUB gov't getting out of the way.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?



It was in response to the mindless a-hole who claimed "Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years." There's tons of opportunity for success in America but some, like the aforementioned a-hole, would rather waste his life whining about how "unfair" it all is.
Whining, sniveling loony leftist a-holes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shytty jobs with dying wage, public college costs doubled just under W, guns everywhere. Great job! Speaking of PUB gov't getting out of the way.
Click to expand...


So what did Bush have to do with the price of college?  Again, colleges are run mostly by liberals who are getting rich.  Shitty jobs and dying wage?  Who was the President these past near seven years?  Bush?  And who is responsible for "guns being everywhere?"  I'll give you a hint.......................


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shytty jobs with dying wage, public college costs doubled just under W, guns everywhere. Great job! Speaking of PUB gov't getting out of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what did Bush have to do with the price of college?  Again, colleges are run mostly by liberals who are getting rich.  Shitty jobs and dying wage?  Who was the President these past near seven years?  Bush?  And who is responsible for "guns being everywhere?"  I'll give you a hint.......................
Click to expand...

 Well they changed laws so their pals could run overpriced, over advertised online crap U's to soak returning GI's and leave them with BS- also let banks jack up loans to further screw them. Cut federal aid to state schools. Read something, Pub dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
Click to expand...

 
Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shytty jobs with dying wage, public college costs doubled just under W, guns everywhere. Great job! Speaking of PUB gov't getting out of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what did Bush have to do with the price of college?  Again, colleges are run mostly by liberals who are getting rich.  Shitty jobs and dying wage?  Who was the President these past near seven years?  Bush?  And who is responsible for "guns being everywhere?"  I'll give you a hint.......................
Click to expand...

 Pubs who have obstructed Obama on EVERYTHING the whole time DUH, and their flog the nonrich and the country policies, Pub dupe. At least no corrupt bubble/world depression and dumbass wars anymore.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
Click to expand...


Yeah ... your 18 hr work week making fries at McD's should be more than enough to cover your needs. The idea of working for a living is clearly beneath your dignity and your compassion for those who pull their own weight is just as clearly missing.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ... your 18 hr work week making fries at McD's should be more than enough to cover your needs. The idea of working for a living is clearly beneath your dignity and your compassion for those who pull their own weight is just as clearly missing.
Click to expand...

 Jeebus what a brainwashed feqhead lol. BTW, I'm a retired teacher/businessman, and you appear to have brain damage lol...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with anything? War zones suq?
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shytty jobs with dying wage, public college costs doubled just under W, guns everywhere. Great job! Speaking of PUB gov't getting out of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what did Bush have to do with the price of college?  Again, colleges are run mostly by liberals who are getting rich.  Shitty jobs and dying wage?  Who was the President these past near seven years?  Bush?  And who is responsible for "guns being everywhere?"  I'll give you a hint.......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pubs who have obstructed Obama on EVERYTHING the whole time DUH, and their flog the nonrich and the country policies, Pub dupe. At least no corrupt bubble/world depression and dumbass wars anymore.
Click to expand...


No corrupt bubble?  LOL!  Certainly you jest.

You are correct, we do not have any wars.  That's the rewards for giving up to your enemies.  And while the ISIS flag flies proudly over Iraq, and the Cuban flag files proudly over the White House, remember that Iran is still working on nukes to bring about WWIII.  But of course we won't be able to blame Hussein for it.  He'll be long gone.  That's the way his little contract with Iran was designed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
Click to expand...


They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.  

And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
Click to expand...


It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... your 18 hr work week making fries at McD's should be more than enough to cover your needs. The idea of working for a living is clearly beneath your dignity and your compassion for those who pull their own weight is just as clearly missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeebus what a brainwashed feqhead lol. BTW, I'm a retired teacher/businessman, and you appear to have brain damage lol...
Click to expand...


One job is usually enough if one gets an education or training. For those whose skills limit them to working a cash register, a 2nd job is _required_. For too many who are pampered by Dem gov't policies (in exchange for their votes), one part-time min wage job and gov't bennies - paid for by the taxes of hard working people like the single mom I described earlier - is good enough. Pathetic.
BTW, if one as ignorant as you was actually a teacher, it certainly explains how so many American children are failed by our education system and why only 65% of NYC kids graduate high school.
As for the biz acumen you've exhibited here...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
Click to expand...


They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?   

I didn't think so.


----------



## SAYIT

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
Click to expand...


You forgot to include any support for your latest monumentally stupid statement because - drum roll, please - it is untrue.
BTW, as of this past April, Walmart's min wage average for a full-timer is $13/hr while part-timers on average get $10.
In February their pay will increase by another $1/hr.
That is well above the gov't requirement but nothing Walmart does would ever satisfy the whiny, sniveling loony leftists among us. NOTHING.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
Click to expand...



Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor. 

For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan. 
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years. 

This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance. 

Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%. 

Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600. 
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest. 

California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government. 

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04

"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:


$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

$100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."


Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SAYIT said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to include any support for your latest monumentally stupid statement because - drum roll, please - it is untrue.
> BTW, as of this past April, Walmart's min wage average for a full-timer is $13/hr while part-timers on average get $10.
> In February their pay will increase by another $1/hr.
> That is well above the gov't requirement but nothing Walmart does would ever satisfy the whiny, sniveling loony leftists among us. NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Above government requirement? Hardly difficult. However it's not just the amount of money they get paid. See my post above.


----------



## Billo_Really

turtledude said:


> rich people are rich because they are smarter, more industrious and network better than the whining losers who complain about the rich.  No matter what the government, there are always rich,  and there are alway scalded monkeys whining about them


Do I know you from another website (which shall go nameless) a long time ago?


----------



## LeftofLeft

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



I will get behind "increase tax on the rich proposals" when liberals get behind across the board, responsible government spending cuts. The Left only wants to cut the military spending because they personally hate it. How about cutting funding for PBS? Taxpayers are directly funding an entity that can rival Disney for royalty profits. Or, in light of the profit centers coming out of Planned Parenthood selling limbs and brains as if they were hubcaps in an after market, why should the US taxpayer be directly subsidizing that?


----------



## Arizona Willie

Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
=============

Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).

Like OSHA
Like FDA
Like more highway maintenance
Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.

People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.

Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT

But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).

There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.

Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.

But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.

Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.

*So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*

It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.

It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.

Follow the money.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.

Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?

ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE

*They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
> 
> 
> 
> rich people are rich because they are smarter, more industrious and network better than the whining losers who complain about the rich.  No matter what the government, there are always rich,  and there are alway scalded monkeys whining about them
Click to expand...



Cool, YOU agreeing taxing the rich, like we did 1932-1980 will not hurt them BUT will help the US treasury. Thanks


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the lease runs out they will... and government isn't the answer.  To many of you fascists are popping up.  Our schools have become the enemy
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I forgot, the rules of supply and demand end when a lease ends *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> The enemy, like ALWAYS are the conservatives, they are NEVER on the correct side of history, EVER. Fucknn pukes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming from you  a guy who supports the party of slavery ? Lol that's rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Weird YOU want to conflate IDEOLOGY with party labels, even though they've switched several times the last 150 years? lol

Yeah, the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa has ALWAYS had the liberal/progressive bent right? lol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> 
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight: All of these people supposedly on all these welfare programs, but it's not the politicians fault that gave them these programs, it's Wal-Mart's fault? 

People willingly accept Wal-Mart jobs because they failed to learn a trade, get an education, or otherwise get off of drugs so they can pass a drug test to get a good job, but it's not the workers fault, it's Wal-Marts fault?  

These excuses are cut from the same cloth that says it's the guns fault for murders in this country.  

You can't solve a problem by shifting blame.  It will never happen.  Do you really think that before Wal-Mart became so nationwide, there were no lower paying jobs in this country?  There were always lower paying jobs.  The difference between years ago and today is that there were no social programs to make up the difference.  If you were stuck in a lower paying job, you got another job to supplement your income.  When that still wasn't enough, you tried harder to advance yourself at work or otherwise leave for better opportunities.  That doesn't happen today.  

Do you want to see Wal-Mart pay better money?  Do you want to see Wal-Mart begging people to work for them?  Then get rid of these social programs.  If you get rid of these programs, maybe, just maybe people will have to earn all of their money which would make them try harder.  There are plenty of better paying jobs than Wal-Mart in this country.  In my industry alone, they are hiring foreigners to come to work because Americans won't.  They can't find enough employees to fill these positions.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y8VaqBpkx...AAvCA/i6Ic99EBV0w/s1600/120426-fair-share.gif
Click to expand...



God little right winger, make sure to narrow down tax burden to INCOME taxes ONLY, lol


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight: All of these people supposedly on all these welfare programs, but it's not the politicians fault that gave them these programs, it's Wal-Mart's fault?
> 
> People willingly accept Wal-Mart jobs because they failed to learn a trade, get an education, or otherwise get off of drugs so they can pass a drug test to get a good job, but it's not the workers fault, it's Wal-Marts fault?
> 
> These excuses are cut from the same cloth that says it's the guns fault for murders in this country.
> 
> You can't solve a problem by shifting blame.  It will never happen.  Do you really think that before Wal-Mart became so nationwide, there were no lower paying jobs in this country?  There were always lower paying jobs.  The difference between years ago and today is that there were no social programs to make up the difference.  If you were stuck in a lower paying job, you got another job to supplement your income.  When that still wasn't enough, you tried harder to advance yourself at work or otherwise leave for better opportunities.  That doesn't happen today.
> 
> Do you want to see Wal-Mart pay better money?  Do you want to see Wal-Mart begging people to work for them?  Then get rid of these social programs.  If you get rid of these programs, maybe, just maybe people will have to earn all of their money which would make them try harder.  There are plenty of better paying jobs than Wal-Mart in this country.  In my industry alone, they are hiring foreigners to come to work because Americans won't.  They can't find enough employees to fill these positions.
Click to expand...


I say it's Walmart who are pushing for this sort of thing. We all know the politicians are easily bought. I wonder how much Walmart pays to make sure sort of thing is allowed to happen. 

But you want to get rid of these programs. How? Walmart paying the politicians to make sure this thing continues?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes*
> Jane Wells | @janewells
> Wednesday, 11 Dec 2013 | 11:56 AM ET
> 
> _Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.
> 
> You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero.
> 
> It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.
> 
> (Read more: New budget deal will pass, says GOP congressman)
> 
> How does someone pay negative taxes? The CBO's formula offsets whatever taxes are paid with "refundable tax credits." Some of these are due to "government transfers" of money back to the taxpayer in the form of social security and food stamps.
> 
> That's not to say the rich are going broke. Hardly.
> 
> According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since the stock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.
> 
> Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip_
Click to expand...



WEIRD you want to ONLY stick with INCOME tax burden, why??? lol


*Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes*


Tax Policy Center data show that only about _17 percent_ of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5]   In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent.  This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.


*Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers*.  (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)



Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes.  Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6]   The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. 




*Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ total tax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes.*  Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning_ 12.3 percent _of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011

*When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average.  The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent*


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.
Click to expand...


LIAR.


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one way government policy can help the rich: GTF out of the way.  That's it.
Click to expand...



You mean like the past 35 years of Reaganomics? How'd that work for the bottom 90%?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol
> 
> Dumbass
> 
> NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.
> 
> LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
> Those who can't stand the heat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are just used to the Democrat way.  You know, keep running your industry at a loss until you lose everything.  After all, that's what the Democrats are doing to our country.
Click to expand...



Weird, amnesia of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies and their effect on US?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Arizona Willie said:


> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*



So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.  

_"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_ 
Dennis Prager 

Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger. 

You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.  

Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.  

So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment. 

The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?  

I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.
> 
> From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run.  If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills.  He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.
Click to expand...


GOOD DODGE BUBS, What you ACTUALLY said, IS if your costs go up, you increase rents

HINT THE RULE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T  APPLY IN YOUR WORLD? lol

Hint PROFITS aren't the same on rentals (cost basis dummy!!)...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
> 
> Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
Click to expand...


Weird, I thought Dubya.GOP policy like cutting taxes was going to boom the economy and create jobs EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED? 

Why do those "job creators" still have the lowest sustained tax burden since 1932 IF they don't create JOBS Bubs?


Stick with your low informed leech meme Bubs, it's ALL you have


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
> 
> I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
> 
> 50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
> 
> 
> 
> THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining that others should pay for your existence.  the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, gov't policy does absolutely nothing for the poor.
Click to expand...



You mean AS the right wing attacks Gov't policy that helps the poor?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market.  You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.
> 
> But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about 80%, fool?  Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loony leftist BS.
> Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
> It's free.
> It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
> I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.
Click to expand...




Dumbass righties. THINK. WHY?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts.  Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
> 
> When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.
> 
> From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run.  If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills.  He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOOD DODGE BUBS, What you ACTUALLY said, IS if your costs go up, you increase rents
> 
> HINT THE RULE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T  APPLY IN YOUR WORLD? lol
> 
> Hint PROFITS aren't the same on rentals (cost basis dummy!!)...
Click to expand...


What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
Click to expand...



PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money


----------



## Arizona Willie

Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
===========


Ray From Cleveland said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> It doesn't matter how little college costs or the fact that well-intentioned rich guys try to make a difference. You can't force disinterested people to accept a golden opportunity if they know a non-productive free-ride is the option:
> 
> June 19, 1987. On the stage in the hot auditorium of the Belmont Elementary School in West Philadelphia were 112 students, all of them black, all between eleven and fourteen years old, most from families on public assistance. For some reason unknown to them, their graduation from sixth grade was being recorded by TV cameras and attended by Philadelphia dignitaries. Diane Weiss, a woman they had never seen before, took the stage, threw a football at them, and announced in breathless, quivering tones that she and her husband, George, would send them all to college—free.
> 
> The students, for the most part, were baffled. But their parents and teachers were not. The room erupted in cheers and tears as they recognized the import of this extraordinary offer. Nothing seemed impossible at that moment—not even the notion that 112 children from this tragically blighted pocket of Philadelphia could beat the odds and go to college.
> 
> Twelve years later, George Weiss—who could not attend the announcement himself because of a bad back—has spent more than $5 million on these students, for tutoring, counseling, social services, and college expenses. By some analysts’ reckoning, what he’s gotten for his money—so far, eleven Bachelor’s degrees, two Associate’s degrees, and seven vocational certificates—isn’t much.
> 
> The $5 Million Lesson | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable




lol, Yep, NOTHING else plays a part in the kids life, they didn't just work hard and go to college *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.




Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how little college costs or the fact that well-intentioned rich guys try to make a difference. You can't force disinterested people to accept a golden opportunity if they know a non-productive free-ride is the option:
> 
> June 19, 1987. On the stage in the hot auditorium of the Belmont Elementary School in West Philadelphia were 112 students, all of them black, all between eleven and fourteen years old, most from families on public assistance. For some reason unknown to them, their graduation from sixth grade was being recorded by TV cameras and attended by Philadelphia dignitaries. Diane Weiss, a woman they had never seen before, took the stage, threw a football at them, and announced in breathless, quivering tones that she and her husband, George, would send them all to college—free.
> 
> The students, for the most part, were baffled. But their parents and teachers were not. The room erupted in cheers and tears as they recognized the import of this extraordinary offer. Nothing seemed impossible at that moment—not even the notion that 112 children from this tragically blighted pocket of Philadelphia could beat the odds and go to college.
> 
> Twelve years later, George Weiss—who could not attend the announcement himself because of a bad back—has spent more than $5 million on these students, for tutoring, counseling, social services, and college expenses. By some analysts’ reckoning, what he’s gotten for his money—so far, eleven Bachelor’s degrees, two Associate’s degrees, and seven vocational certificates—isn’t much.
> 
> The $5 Million Lesson | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Yep, NOTHING else plays a part in the kids life, they didn't just work hard and go to college *shaking head*
Click to expand...


The chosen 112 were provided with mentoring, tutoring, counseling and social services not available to the kids not endowed with the Weiss's largesse and a full ride to any school to which they were accepted. The Weiss's did whatever they could to give those kids a leg up. The results? No better than (and maybe not as good as) the unanionted. Exactly what can society do to lift the underclass? Spoon feed 'em? Oh wait ... we already do that.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
Click to expand...


"freedom" lol


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


CNN told you that


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> 
> Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...



You Are An Idiot.    The upper income levels pay almost all of total Federal Taxes, of all kinds.




 

US Federal taxes by income level 1979–2007 - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
Click to expand...


Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours.  So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates.  There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.
> 
> From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run.  If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills.  He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOOD DODGE BUBS, What you ACTUALLY said, IS if your costs go up, you increase rents
> 
> HINT THE RULE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T  APPLY IN YOUR WORLD? lol
> 
> Hint PROFITS aren't the same on rentals (cost basis dummy!!)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
Click to expand...



Glad YOU agree, since I bought my first rental unit in 1993 my costs are lower than someone who prob bought last year, therefor MY profits are prob higher even though we both charge the same in rent. SEE HOW THAT WORKS BUBBA?

You DON'T get to increase rent prices just because of YOUR costs. A thing called supply/demand


----------



## boedicca

And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.


----------



## Arizona Willie

No, I don't watch the Conservative News Network. 
Well maybe once in awhile when there is some big disaster but not for very damn long.
Just long enough to get the scoop and then I'm outta there.
My hearing aids were made in a Socialist Country and they can't stand too much of that Unregulated Capitalism Crap.
================================


kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> No, I don't watch the Conservative News Network.
> Well maybe once in awhile when there is some big disaster but not for very damn long.
> Just long enough to get the scoop and then I'm outta there.
> My hearing aids were made in a Socialist Country and they can't stand too much of that Unregulated Capitalism Crap.
> ================================
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


CNN is the "Conservative News Network?"



Wow, how far left do you lean?  Can you even walk upright?  So what did MS-NBC tell you to say then?


----------



## Arizona Willie

Boedica, you did pretty good but it is even better than the chart shows.

The chart is using AGI ( Adjusted Gross Income ) which shows the Bottom 50% paying less than 2% in Federal taxes.

If you use their ACTUAL GROSS INCOME the percentage becomes even less.

People lie TO THEMSELVES when they claim they pay a lot of Federal Income Taxes --- unless they are up there making over a million dollars a year.

They drink the Foxnewsaide and are *certain* they pay 30% or more in Federal Taxes and over 50% in total taxes which is so much used douche water.

*=========================*



boedicca said:


> And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.
> 
> View attachment 48686


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
Click to expand...


Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.

Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> Boedica, you did pretty good but it is even better than the chart shows.
> 
> The chart is using AGI ( Adjusted Gross Income ) which shows the Bottom 50% paying less than 2% in Federal taxes.
> 
> If you use their ACTUAL GROSS INCOME the percentage becomes even less.
> 
> People lie TO THEMSELVES when they claim they pay a lot of Federal Income Taxes --- unless they are up there making over a million dollars a year.
> 
> They drink the Foxnewsaide and are *certain* they pay 30% or more in Federal Taxes and over 50% in total taxes which is so much used douche water.
> 
> *=========================*
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.
> 
> View attachment 48686
Click to expand...


Wow, you really memorized those MS-NBC talking points, good job, you're popping out one after another


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how little college costs or the fact that well-intentioned rich guys try to make a difference. You can't force disinterested people to accept a golden opportunity if they know a non-productive free-ride is the option:
> 
> June 19, 1987. On the stage in the hot auditorium of the Belmont Elementary School in West Philadelphia were 112 students, all of them black, all between eleven and fourteen years old, most from families on public assistance. For some reason unknown to them, their graduation from sixth grade was being recorded by TV cameras and attended by Philadelphia dignitaries. Diane Weiss, a woman they had never seen before, took the stage, threw a football at them, and announced in breathless, quivering tones that she and her husband, George, would send them all to college—free.
> 
> The students, for the most part, were baffled. But their parents and teachers were not. The room erupted in cheers and tears as they recognized the import of this extraordinary offer. Nothing seemed impossible at that moment—not even the notion that 112 children from this tragically blighted pocket of Philadelphia could beat the odds and go to college.
> 
> Twelve years later, George Weiss—who could not attend the announcement himself because of a bad back—has spent more than $5 million on these students, for tutoring, counseling, social services, and college expenses. By some analysts’ reckoning, what he’s gotten for his money—so far, eleven Bachelor’s degrees, two Associate’s degrees, and seven vocational certificates—isn’t much.
> 
> The $5 Million Lesson | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Yep, NOTHING else plays a part in the kids life, they didn't just work hard and go to college *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chosen 112 were provided with mentoring, tutoring, counseling and social services not available to the kids not endowed with the Weiss's largesse and a full ride to any school to which they were accepted. The Weiss's did whatever they could to give those kids a leg up. The results? No better than (and maybe not as good as) the unanionted. Exactly what can society do to lift the underclass? Spoon feed 'em? Oh wait ... we already do that.
Click to expand...



The* Belmont 112 - minus eight who died, all but one violently* - are in their early 30s. Weiss, 64, estimates he spent more than $5 million by 2000, the deadline for completing their educations on his dime. In bean-counter terms, the return on his investment is this:

*20 bachelor's degrees. College graduates constitute nearly 19 percent of the class. *A comparable group of children - the offspring of low-income African American parents without high school diplomas - were tracked in a national study beginning when they were eighth graders in the late 1980s. J*ust 10 percent finished college.*

10 associate degrees.

14 vocational certificates.

65 high school diplomas, plus five GEDs. That is slightly above 62 percent, *more than double what was considered the norm for their demographic group.*

*...*For Weiss, though, the randomness backfired almost immediately. The day before the Say Yes launch*, he learned that the class he was about to anoint had 44 special-education students. Several others had been "socially promoted" above their grade levels by a principal eager to get them in on the bonanza.*


Pieces of the Dream Twenty years ago, a stranger made a stunning offer to an entire class of sixth graders: A free college education. Some triumphed, others faltered. Some soared; others stumbled


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> 
> Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You Are An Idiot.    The upper income levels pay almost all of total Federal Taxes, of all kinds.
> 
> View attachment 48683
> 
> US Federal taxes by income level 1979–2007 - Wikimedia Commons
Click to expand...


You mean the top 1/4th of households TAKING 70% of the incomes pays more taxes than the bottom 3/4ths who make only 30% of income? Shocking

BUT OVERALL TAX BURDEN IN THE US, MIRRORS INCOME SHARE DUMMY!  EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROGRESSIVE!!!!


----------



## Arizona Willie

Kax, there was a time long ago when CNN < was > Liberal but they bought a ticket on the crazy train and went right wing batshit crazy.

CNN has been very conservative for the last 15 years or so --- which was a shame.

*================*



kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't watch the Conservative News Network.
> Well maybe once in awhile when there is some big disaster but not for very damn long.
> Just long enough to get the scoop and then I'm outta there.
> My hearing aids were made in a Socialist Country and they can't stand too much of that Unregulated Capitalism Crap.
> ================================
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN is the "Conservative News Network?"
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, how far left do you lean?  Can you even walk upright?  So what did MS-NBC tell you to say then?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
Click to expand...


Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol


----------



## Arizona Willie

The TRUTH will always come out, eventually. 

Fox news has done their lying best to keep it under wraps but eventually even people like you realize that Fox told the truth at least ONCE.

*When they testified in court that they lied to their viewers / listeners and intended to continue because they had the right to lie because they were chartered as an " entertainment company " not as a news organization --- despite their name.

That is just about the ONLY time Fox News ever told the truth.*

View attachment 48686[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Wow, you really memorized those MS-NBC talking points, good job, you're popping out one after another[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
Click to expand...



LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> 
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Click to expand...



*The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
*
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
*
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
*
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.

It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> The TRUTH will always come out, eventually.
> 
> Fox news has done their lying best to keep it under wraps but eventually even people like you realize that Fox told the truth at least ONCE.
> 
> *When they testified in court that they lied to their viewers / listeners and intended to continue because they had the right to lie because they were chartered as an " entertainment company " not as a news organization --- despite their name.*
> 
> *That is just about the ONLY time Fox News ever told the truth.*
> 
> View attachment 48686





They ALSO argued, it was their first amendment right to lie, lol


----------



## Arizona Willie

Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.

AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits. 

WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *

It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
It is for Adjusted not ALL.

Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.

*====================*


Dad2three said:


> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!


----------



## Arizona Willie

Conservatives THINK they are smart but yet they believe every word that comes from admitted lying Fox News!!

Therein lies the real puzzle.

Why do otherwise reasonably intelligent people believe every lie told by an admitted / declared LIAR?

*================*



Dad2three said:


> They ALSO argued, it was their first amendment right to lie, lol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Arizona Willie said:


> Conservatives THINK they are smart but yet they believe every word that comes from admitted lying Fox News!!
> 
> Therein lies the real puzzle.
> 
> Why do otherwise reasonably intelligent people believe every lie told by and admitted / declared LIAR?
> 
> *================*
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ALSO argued, it was their first amendment right to lie, lol
Click to expand...


Good question.  Maybe you should find a Hillary supporter and ask them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many religious congregatoins have a similar problem as Fox viewers.

It is a matter of confirmation bias resolving cognitive dissonance, for folks believe what they believe.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
Click to expand...


You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
Click to expand...


CNN?  Nobody watches CNN anymore.  LOL!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Arizona Willie said:


> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are so consumed with Fox news and dare say I'm a lost cause?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride.  They pay no actual income tax at all.  How much more of a free ride do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
Click to expand...



Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> Kax, there was a time long ago when CNN < was > Liberal but they bought a ticket on the crazy train and went right wing batshit crazy.
> 
> CNN has been very conservative for the last 15 years or so --- which was a shame.
> 
> *================*
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't watch the Conservative News Network.
> Well maybe once in awhile when there is some big disaster but not for very damn long.
> Just long enough to get the scoop and then I'm outta there.
> My hearing aids were made in a Socialist Country and they can't stand too much of that Unregulated Capitalism Crap.
> ================================
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN is the "Conservative News Network?"
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, how far left do you lean?  Can you even walk upright?  So what did MS-NBC tell you to say then?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, dude, CNN is conservative.  Face it, left wing whack job is a dot far in your rear view mirror


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN told you that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CNN?  Nobody watches CNN anymore.  LOL!
Click to expand...

You work for Fox.


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
Click to expand...


So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so consumed with Fox news and dare say I'm a lost cause?
Click to expand...

 Absolutely- you believe a huge pile of Foxcrappe. Blaming the poor for the corrupt GOP world depression, for example, or our worst inequality ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> "It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."
> 
> Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.
> 
> 
> 
> MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.  Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> 
> Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You Are An Idiot.    The upper income levels pay almost all of total Federal Taxes, of all kinds.
> 
> View attachment 48683
> 
> US Federal taxes by income level 1979–2007 - Wikimedia Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the top 1/4th of households TAKING 70% of the incomes pays more taxes than the bottom 3/4ths who make only 30% of income? Shocking
> 
> BUT OVERALL TAX BURDEN IN THE US, MIRRORS INCOME SHARE DUMMY!  EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROGRESSIVE!!!!
Click to expand...

*
You mean the top 1/4th of households TAKING 70% of the incomes
*
And this is how we know dad is a commie.


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.
> 
> View attachment 48686


----------



## Mr Natural

In Conservatopia, the more you make, the less you should pay.


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
Click to expand...




SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol


Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so consumed with Fox news and dare say I'm a lost cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely- you believe a huge pile of Foxcrappe. Blaming the poor for the corrupt GOP world depression, for example, or our worst inequality ever.
Click to expand...


I blamed the poor for world depression?  I don't recall that.  Maybe you can refresh my memory. 

And yes, we have the worst inequity ever.  Remember who's been your President for these last near seven years.  But we really can't blame him now can we?  Of course not.  So who should we blame?  Perhaps it's all those people that created the wealth inequity: the American consumer.  

Now that we have more things to buy today, we have more wealth transfer.  We willingly give our money to those at the top in exchange for products and services.  How is that unfair?  It's not really.  

Yes, we have our I-phones, our cable/ satellite services, our internet, our video games, our pay-per-view stations, our computers, the gasoline in our automobiles, our automobiles and we trade our hard earned cash willingly. 

Of course if you are so upset with how much inequity there is in this country, you can simply not buy anything unless it's a necessity.  Charity starts at home as they say.  Be a leader.  Set an example.  Turn off this internet right now and sell that computer.  Don't you give those rich people one more dime of your money.  And no more McDonald's or Burger King.  You make your dinners at home and stay away from those multi-billion dollar companies.  They will only trap you into giving them more of your wealth.


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.
> 
> View attachment 48686
Click to expand...




WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!  Daddio has his knickers in a twist because the people who earn 16% of the income pay more than a third of Federal incomes taxes. WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol
> 
> 
> Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!
Click to expand...



That is utter crap.  The AMT reverses out deductions.


----------



## Dad2three

JakeStarkey said:


> Many religious congregatoins have a similar problem as Fox viewers.
> 
> It is a matter of confirmation bias resolving cognitive dissonance, for folks believe what they believe.





*Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.* Frankly, these people frighten me.* Politics and governing demand compromise*. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.....- _Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of_ The Conscience of a Conservative


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol
> 
> 
> Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter crap.  The AMT reverses out deductions.
Click to expand...



Stupid fukkn argument, AGAIN. You think plumbers grossing $250,000 a year are at the top tax rate dummy? lol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mr Clean said:


> In Conservatopia, the more you make, the less you should pay.



_"Liberalism is a belief that if you earn money, you are not entitled to it.  But if you want money, you are." 
Ken Blackwell  _


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's how much people at various income levels ACTUALLY PAY in just Federal Income Taxes.  The Rich (which is a ridiculous distinction including families that make over $343K per year as well as multi-billionaires), pay 24% of their income in just federal income taxes.
> 
> View attachment 48686
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!  Daddio has his knickers in a twist because the people who earn 16% of the income pay more than a third of Federal incomes taxes. WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!
Click to expand...


You mean AS their share of income tripled the last 35 years and their tax burden (effective) shrunk? Nahhhh


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.
Click to expand...



MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE  than $250,000 a year.

WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol


----------



## boedicca

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol
> 
> 
> Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter crap.  The AMT reverses out deductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fukkn argument, AGAIN. You think plumbers grossing $250,000 a year are at the top tax rate dummy? lol
Click to expand...


^^^ Blithering Moron ^^^



 

Alternative minimum tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
> A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
> She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
> She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
Click to expand...


True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep
Click to expand...


Me a Republican? Bubba, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GOPer or CONServative, I'm not that stupid or desperate! 

But YES, the right wing are sheeple dancing to the music of Faux, Rushblo, Levin, Beck, AEI, Heritage, CATO,  etc


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol
> 
> 
> Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter crap.  The AMT reverses out deductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fukkn argument, AGAIN. You think plumbers grossing $250,000 a year are at the top tax rate dummy? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^ Blithering Moron ^^^
> 
> View attachment 48699
> 
> Alternative minimum tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



Yes YOU ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT. And what about the AMT Bubs? Make a fukkn point or go fuk yourself!


----------



## ScienceRocks

Rich use our system a lot more then the poor do...They also cheat it all the time. Anyone that thinks they shouldn't be taxed more don't live in reality.


----------



## Mr Natural

Matthew said:


> Rich use our system a lot more then the poor do...They also cheat it all the time. Anyone that thinks they shouldn't be taxed more don't live in reality.



And in the event of a complete social and economic meltdown, they have a lot more to lose.

It's like car insurance and makes perfect sense.  The better and more expensive your car, the more your insurance costs.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE  than $250,000 a year.
> 
> WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol
Click to expand...


You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.

As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me a Republican? Bubba, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GOPer or CONServative, I'm not that stupid or desperate!
> 
> But YES, the right wing are sheeple dancing to the music of Faux, Rushblo, Levin, Beck, AEI, Heritage, CATO,  etc
Click to expand...


You're more like the Republicans than I am, Holmes.  If you have any brain cells at all though, read what you wrote, now think about how stupid you are when you keep calling me a Republican.

Hey, you voted for W, you bought it, you own it...


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass right wingers want to conflate GROSS with net with the NON PLUMBER who was no where NEAR that income (in the comp he worked for, lol)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE  than $250,000 a year.
> 
> WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.
> 
> As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?
Click to expand...


GAWD YOU MORONS ARE DUMB AS FUKKKK



No someone GROSSING $250,000 a year IS NOT "wealthy" AND would NEVER be taxed near the top rates. EVER, if they are in the trades (as II have been for 30+ years, mostly self employed!) Gross $250,000 prob income of $75,000-$100,00 a year!

TAXES ARE NOT ON GROSS BUT ADJUSTED GROSS. Deduct right off the bat, EXPENSES such as materials, wages paid, insurance and bond costs, deductions for vehicles and expenses


THEN you get to use AMORTIZED deductions FINALLY you arrive at AGI



THE RIGHTS BIG LIE THAT TAXES WOULD INCREASE ON THE SMALL BIZ OWNERS WAS/IS A LIE.


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "freedom" lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me a Republican? Bubba, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GOPer or CONServative, I'm not that stupid or desperate!
> 
> But YES, the right wing are sheeple dancing to the music of Faux, Rushblo, Levin, Beck, AEI, Heritage, CATO,  etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more like the Republicans than I am, Holmes.  If you have any brain cells at all though, read what you wrote, now think about how stupid you are when you keep calling me a Republican.
> 
> Hey, you voted for W, you bought it, you own it...
Click to expand...


Gawd you right wingers get dumber than fuk the more you post Bubs


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me a Republican? Bubba, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GOPer or CONServative, I'm not that stupid or desperate!
> 
> But YES, the right wing are sheeple dancing to the music of Faux, Rushblo, Levin, Beck, AEI, Heritage, CATO,  etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more like the Republicans than I am, Holmes.  If you have any brain cells at all though, read what you wrote, now think about how stupid you are when you keep calling me a Republican.
> 
> Hey, you voted for W, you bought it, you own it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you right wingers get dumber than fuk the more you post Bubs
Click to expand...


Look Einstein, you spend all day pumping right wing causes, stop being an idiot and claiming you aren't a Republican now.  Faux news has done a lobotomy on your brain.  What are you going to do when everyone has guns and is shooting each other up, the environment is dead and global warming turns Canada into a tropical zone?  You going to be proud of your bible thumping right wing agenda then?  You going to stick with it or think maybe we needed some Democrat sense after all instead of raping the planet?


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom to you is free shit, ay Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another right wing meme to the low informed, like the Jeezubus guy... Faux LOVES that crap, "freedom" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you a Republican then?  Why do you let Fox program you?  Don't you have any ability to question what Faux Noise tells you?  Stop blindly repeating it, right wing sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me a Republican? Bubba, you couldn't pay me enough to be a GOPer or CONServative, I'm not that stupid or desperate!
> 
> But YES, the right wing are sheeple dancing to the music of Faux, Rushblo, Levin, Beck, AEI, Heritage, CATO,  etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more like the Republicans than I am, Holmes.  If you have any brain cells at all though, read what you wrote, now think about how stupid you are when you keep calling me a Republican.
> 
> Hey, you voted for W, you bought it, you own it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you right wingers get dumber than fuk the more you post Bubs
Click to expand...


Gotcha, right wing moon bat.  Why do you keep voting for the Republican clown car?   So seriously, this is what you consider entertaining?  That's the part that's actually entertaining.  I couldn't make up stupid like you people actually are


----------



## Arizona Willie

You are mixing up the Gross's.

You are conflating Gross with Adjusted Gross which is the lower figure in your post below. 

Adjusted Gross Income IS your net income after deductions and credits.

It is  simply another term for NET INCOME.

I think we are talking the same thing but you have confused the terms in your mind and posts.

But on the tax forms they don't call it " net income " they call it AGI.



GROSS INCOME = $200,000
AGI = $95,000 
Net Income = $95,000



Depending of course on how many mortages you can deduct interest on and how many medical deductions you have and how many children etc. etc.
*====================*


Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there certainly is a " dumbfukkkk " in the discussion --- and it's YOU.
> 
> AGI is for Adjusted Gross Income which is your income after deductions and credits.
> 
> WHICH IS your *net taxable income. *
> 
> It appears you don't understand what the A in AGI stands for.
> It is for Adjusted not ALL.
> 
> Nobody pays taxes on their GROSS INCOME.
> By the time people figure in their deductions and credits they pay on only a FRACTION of their GROSS income.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY? YOU TRYING TO ARGUE GROSS IS THE SAME AS AGI? lol
> 
> 
> Listen, GROSSING $250,000 prob puts your taxable income at $75,000-$100,00 a year (deduct material, wages paid, etc) GROW UP, GROW A BRAIN!
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
Click to expand...


Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.  

Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.  

Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.  

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.
> 
> Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE  than $250,000 a year.
> 
> WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.
> 
> As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU MORONS ARE DUMB AS FUKKKK
> 
> 
> 
> No someone GROSSING $250,000 a year IS NOT "wealthy" AND would NEVER be taxed near the top rates. EVER, if they are in the trades (as II have been for 30+ years, mostly self employed!) Gross $250,000 prob income of $75,000-$100,00 a year!
> 
> TAXES ARE NOT ON GROSS BUT ADJUSTED GROSS. Deduct right off the bat, EXPENSES such as materials, wages paid, insurance and bond costs, deductions for vehicles and expenses
> 
> 
> THEN you get to use AMORTIZED deductions FINALLY you arrive at AGI
> 
> 
> 
> THE RIGHTS BIG LIE THAT TAXES WOULD INCREASE ON THE SMALL BIZ OWNERS WAS/IS A LIE.
Click to expand...


... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
Click to expand...


I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol


Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work? 

How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?


HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!

Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"

Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc


GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE  than $250,000 a year.
> 
> WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.
> 
> As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU MORONS ARE DUMB AS FUKKKK
> 
> 
> 
> No someone GROSSING $250,000 a year IS NOT "wealthy" AND would NEVER be taxed near the top rates. EVER, if they are in the trades (as II have been for 30+ years, mostly self employed!) Gross $250,000 prob income of $75,000-$100,00 a year!
> 
> TAXES ARE NOT ON GROSS BUT ADJUSTED GROSS. Deduct right off the bat, EXPENSES such as materials, wages paid, insurance and bond costs, deductions for vehicles and expenses
> 
> 
> THEN you get to use AMORTIZED deductions FINALLY you arrive at AGI
> 
> 
> 
> THE RIGHTS BIG LIE THAT TAXES WOULD INCREASE ON THE SMALL BIZ OWNERS WAS/IS A LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.
Click to expand...


YOU MORON, why differentiate between gross and net WHEN taxes are based on NET? Oh right the right wing MEME was Obama/Dems allowing the Dubya tax cuts expire would hurt "small Biz" despite the LIE it was





Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

A Bogus Tax Attack Against Obama


----------



## Arizona Willie

People generally talk Gross because they have no idea what deductions people have and what their AGI / NET would be.

Seven people who make $200,000 / year would all have different NET incomes.

So, to compare apples to apples we talk Gross not net.

So Biden was talking Gross.
*===========================*



LeftofLeft said:


> < chatter removed for brevity >
> 
> ... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
Click to expand...





*Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.











On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.







This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
*
How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> People generally talk Gross because they have no idea what deductions people have and what their AGI / NET would be.
> 
> Seven people who make $200,000 / year would all have different NET incomes.
> 
> So, to compare apples to apples we talk Gross not net.
> 
> So Biden was talking Gross.
> *===========================*
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> < chatter removed for brevity >
> 
> ... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.
Click to expand...


No, no one with a brain "thinks" a plumber is making $250,000 a year NET. Very, very few do, ALL with MANY employees under them


Biden was talking NET like anyone with a brain does talking tax burdens!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
Click to expand...


War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.

A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to.  He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time.  Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.
> 
> When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores.  They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home.  When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.
> 
> He does pretty well turning in junk.  All cash, no paper trail.  Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them.  He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List.  When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.
> 
> They are early with the rent every month by at least one week.  They both drive new vehicles.  Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion.  You don't see younger people like that anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
> 
> 
> Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
> 
> How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
> 
> 
> HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
> 
> Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
> 
> Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc
> 
> 
> GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
Click to expand...


Liberals ended slavery?  I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?  

Civil rights?  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats.  And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.  

Union stores?  You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home.  You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits.  That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Click to expand...


How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?








WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?


----------



## ScienceRocks

SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
> 
> 
> Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
> 
> How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
> 
> 
> HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
> 
> Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
> 
> Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc
> 
> 
> GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals ended slavery?  I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
> 
> Civil rights?  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats.  And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
> 
> Union stores?  You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home.  You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits.  That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
Click to expand...


Abe WAS A PROGRESSIVE Bubs, hint it WAS the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKa we fought in the Civil warr remember?


BUT you keep conflating party label with ideology Bubs,


HINT IT WAS THE SOUTH WHO FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BUBS, You know today's GOP base??? lol


*By party and region*
*Note:* "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "*Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.*

The original House version:


*Southern* Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
*Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)*

Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
The Senate version:


*Southern *Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
*Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)*
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
> 
> 
> Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
> 
> How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
> 
> 
> HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
> 
> Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
> 
> Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc
> 
> 
> GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals ended slavery?  I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
> 
> Civil rights?  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats.  And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
> 
> Union stores?  You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home.  You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits.  That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
Click to expand...


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
> ===========
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class?  Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
> =============
> 
> Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).
> 
> Like OSHA
> Like FDA
> Like more highway maintenance
> Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
> Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.
> 
> People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.
> 
> Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT
> 
> But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
> Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
> Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
> Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).
> 
> There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.
> 
> Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.
> 
> But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.
> 
> Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.
> 
> *So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.*
> 
> It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.
> 
> It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY
> 
> The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.
> 
> Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?
> 
> ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE
> 
> *They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger?  I don't understand that.  The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.
> 
> _"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."_
> Dennis Prager
> 
> Let me give you an example here.  Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.
> 
> You turn 18 years old.  Now you are a legal adult.  So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party.  Oh no you don't.  You live with your parents.  Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.
> 
> Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment.  Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live.  Now you can have your party.  Well yes, you can, but with major limitations.  You have neighbors to consider.  They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.
> 
> So now you move out of your apartment into your own house.  Now you are the king of your castle.  Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.
> 
> The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have.  That's why relying on government for everything is servitude.  Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where  she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?
> 
> I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so consumed with Fox news and dare say I'm a lost cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely- you believe a huge pile of Foxcrappe. Blaming the poor for the corrupt GOP world depression, for example, or our worst inequality ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I blamed the poor for world depression?  I don't recall that.  Maybe you can refresh my memory.
> 
> And yes, we have the worst inequity ever.  Remember who's been your President for these last near seven years.  But we really can't blame him now can we?  Of course not.  So who should we blame?  Perhaps it's all those people that created the wealth inequity: the American consumer.
> 
> Now that we have more things to buy today, we have more wealth transfer.  We willingly give our money to those at the top in exchange for products and services.  How is that unfair?  It's not really.
> 
> Yes, we have our I-phones, our cable/ satellite services, our internet, our video games, our pay-per-view stations, our computers, the gasoline in our automobiles, our automobiles and we trade our hard earned cash willingly.
> 
> Of course if you are so upset with how much inequity there is in this country, you can simply not buy anything unless it's a necessity.  Charity starts at home as they say.  Be a leader.  Set an example.  Turn off this internet right now and sell that computer.  Don't you give those rich people one more dime of your money.  And no more McDonald's or Burger King.  You make your dinners at home and stay away from those multi-billion dollar companies.  They will only trap you into giving them more of your wealth.
Click to expand...

Everyone outside the Fox etc etc Pub dupe bubble blames mindless Pub obstruction. DUH. Then pure nonsense again...


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Click to expand...


Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Click to expand...



Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...


----------



## turtledude

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.



Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring


----------



## boedicca

Matthew said:


> SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.




And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class.  Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring
Click to expand...


Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats


*Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *


_The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes_. Noah Webster




* Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html#ixzz3kFllWKY1
Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class.  Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.
Click to expand...



MORE right wing bullshit, shocking


READ A FUKKN HISTORY BOOK DUMMY, GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES NOT BASED IN REALITY!!!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

boedicca said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class.  Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the massive rip-offs that those programs endure every year to the tune of billions of dollars.  You have much less of that in the private market. Government?  They don't care because it's not their money.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
Click to expand...



I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.


----------



## sealybobo

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy  and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> like your creative math on SS tax rates
> *
> Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
> How weird is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
> 
> 
> HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
> 
> FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Click to expand...

Interestingly the tea party in Michigan now wants to raise corporate taxes after the GOP tried to raise the sales tax.

The tea party at least understands the rich are trying to shift the tax burden onto us.

Traditional Republicans are too stupid to realize it. They actually defend Republicans when they try this.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like again?  Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week.  Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week.  It certainly isn't in our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
> 
> 
> Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
> 
> How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
> 
> 
> HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
> 
> Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
> 
> Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc
> 
> 
> GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals ended slavery?  I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
> 
> Civil rights?  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats.  And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
> 
> Union stores?  You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home.  You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits.  That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


_I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else._


_March 6, 1860 Speech at New Haven, Connecticut_


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory *
> 
> 
> If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. T*hat doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
> *
> How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Click to expand...


Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol


Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
Click to expand...


But she is the richest woman in the US, no?  

So that's your hang-up?  You don't like people who inherit money except the government?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty?  Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.  A workplace is there to work.
> 
> Unions?  Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
> 
> Poverty?  Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
> 
> I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time.  As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well.  It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today.  Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use.  Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star.  They just weren't around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
> 
> 
> Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
> 
> How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
> 
> 
> HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
> 
> Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
> 
> Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education,  etc
> 
> 
> GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals ended slavery?  I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
> 
> Civil rights?  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats.  And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
> 
> Union stores?  You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home.  You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits.  That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else._
> 
> 
> _March 6, 1860 Speech at New Haven, Connecticut_
Click to expand...





  THAT WAS A SLAVERY SPEECH AT THE SHOE STRIKE DUMMY


...Now, to come back to this shoe strike,---if, as the Senator from Illinois asserts, this is caused by withdrawal of Southern votes, consider briefly how you will meet the difficulty. You have done nothing, and have protested that you have done nothing, to injure the South. And yet, to get back the shoe trade, you must leave off doing something that you are now doing. What is it? You must stop thinking slavery wrong! Let your institutions be wholly changed; let your State Constitutions be subverted, glorify slavery, and so you will get back the shoe trade---for what?* You have brought owned labor with it to compete with your own labor, to under work you, and to degrade you! Are you ready to get back the trade on those terms?*

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.  Volume 4.



ABE:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."


"Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn." 

"Labor is the true standard of value."



I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But she is the richest woman in the US, no?
> 
> So that's your hang-up?  You don't like people who inherit money except the government?
Click to expand...


NO DUMMY, ALICE WALTON IS, SHE INHERITED HERS, OPRAH, NOPE! 


You do realize what a MERIT BASED society is right oh low informed tool?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But she is the richest woman in the US, no?
> 
> So that's your hang-up?  You don't like people who inherit money except the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO DUMMY, ALICE WALTON IS, SHE INHERITED HERS, OPRAH, NOPE!
> 
> 
> You do realize what a MERIT BASED society is right oh low informed tool?
Click to expand...


*You do realize what a MERIT BASED society is right*

Is that where a guy like Sam Walton makes a bunch of money and then the government steals it when he dies?
Because.....MERIT.


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> _The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes_. Noah Webster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
Click to expand...



get a job peasant and stop wanting others to fund you and your spawn's miserable existences


----------



## Papageorgio

Wry Catcher said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
> 
> The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
> 
> The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
> 
> So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That matters how?  Oh, I know, "it's your money".  It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
> 
> In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
Click to expand...


You lost, you can't back it up, blow it out your nose. Troll.


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just write?  Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill?  Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up.  That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental.  Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats
> 
> 
> *Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say? *
> 
> 
> _The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes_. Noah Webster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers *
> 
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> Stephen Budiansky's  Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> get a job peasant and stop wanting others to fund you and your spawn's miserable existences
Click to expand...



Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs


yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasite

you should be a bit more respectful to those of us who pay for your existence


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Click to expand...


Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.

Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff. 

What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.

It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.

Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it. 

I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasite
> 
> you should be a bit more respectful to those of us who pay for your existence
Click to expand...




AGAIN Bubs

Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs

Keep yourself on your knees for the plutocrats though Bubs


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
> 
> Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
> 
> Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
> 
> With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
> 
> A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
> 
> War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
Click to expand...


Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...


*Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff.
*
They also save money for people who don't buy their stuff.

_On Monday, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus will announce its finding that the “implied claim” in the ads — that families shopping at Wal-Mart will save $2,500 a year more than those that shop at other big stores — is misleading._

_It is a message “for which the advertiser provided no support and, in fact, conceded that there was none,” the group says._

_The claim of saving $2,500 dates to 2005, when Wal-Mart, under mounting criticism from unions and elected leaders over its business practices, commissioned a study of its economic impact on Americans._

_An outside firm, paid by Wal-Mart, found that the company’s emphasis on low prices led to a 3 percent decline in overall consumer prices. That translated into $287 billion in savings in 2006, or $2,500 a household, whether a family shops at Wal-Mart or a competitor, according to the study._

_The watchdog group had no quibble with what it called the “express claim” of Wal-Mart’s ad — that it saves American families $2,500 a year. “The advertiser has provided adequate support for its intended message,” according to the report._

_Shopping at WalMart specifically does not save the average family $2,500 a year. But the effect of WalMart on the total economy means that the average family does save $2,500 a year on their shopping. This is, if you like, the consumer surplus of the big box stores having driven all those Mom and Pop stores out of business: and of having destroyed all of those jobs in the process._

_Or, if you prefer, that $287 billion a year. And please do note that that’s each and every year._


_WalMart Destroys Jobs, Yes, But The Benefits Go To Consumers, Not The Top_


*
*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff.
> *
> They also save money for people who don't buy their stuff.
> 
> _On Monday, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus will announce its finding that the “implied claim” in the ads — that families shopping at Wal-Mart will save $2,500 a year more than those that shop at other big stores — is misleading._
> 
> _It is a message “for which the advertiser provided no support and, in fact, conceded that there was none,” the group says._
> 
> _The claim of saving $2,500 dates to 2005, when Wal-Mart, under mounting criticism from unions and elected leaders over its business practices, commissioned a study of its economic impact on Americans._
> 
> _An outside firm, paid by Wal-Mart, found that the company’s emphasis on low prices led to a 3 percent decline in overall consumer prices. That translated into $287 billion in savings in 2006, or $2,500 a household, whether a family shops at Wal-Mart or a competitor, according to the study._
> 
> _The watchdog group had no quibble with what it called the “express claim” of Wal-Mart’s ad — that it saves American families $2,500 a year. “The advertiser has provided adequate support for its intended message,” according to the report._
> 
> _Shopping at WalMart specifically does not save the average family $2,500 a year. But the effect of WalMart on the total economy means that the average family does save $2,500 a year on their shopping. This is, if you like, the consumer surplus of the big box stores having driven all those Mom and Pop stores out of business: and of having destroyed all of those jobs in the process._
> 
> _Or, if you prefer, that $287 billion a year. And please do note that that’s each and every year._
> 
> 
> _WalMart Destroys Jobs, Yes, But The Benefits Go To Consumers, Not The Top_
Click to expand...



So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?

I'll tell you what. I'll open up a store. I'll pay my employees $1 an hour then charge much less for my products, and go to government and say "I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"

Is that small government mentality? 

I don't get it.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
Click to expand...



It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs? 


Gawd you low informed types are tiring and moronic


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
Click to expand...


That racism isn't a rule?


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasite
> 
> you should be a bit more respectful to those of us who pay for your existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN Bubs
> 
> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
> 
> Keep yourself on your knees for the plutocrats though Bubs
Click to expand...


Hey dipshit,  I am your overlord,  people like you bow to me


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
Click to expand...



*Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.

While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.

The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:

1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.



Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?


----------



## Dad2three

turtledude said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasite
> 
> you should be a bit more respectful to those of us who pay for your existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN Bubs
> 
> Your inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
> 
> Keep yourself on your knees for the plutocrats though Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dipshit,  I am your overlord,  people like you bow to me
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand what respect  an assistant manager at McD's gets  Bubs


----------



## turtledude

Dad2three said:


> I don't think you understand what respect  an assistant manager at McD's gets  Bubs


congratulations on your promotion.


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in ....



Yeah... I was merely commenting on the inability to recognize the distinction between equality under the law - (ensuring that our laws and government aren't racist) and trying to address cultural bigotry via the law. But I suppose that's off-topic.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
Click to expand...


Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff.
> *
> They also save money for people who don't buy their stuff.
> 
> _On Monday, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus will announce its finding that the “implied claim” in the ads — that families shopping at Wal-Mart will save $2,500 a year more than those that shop at other big stores — is misleading._
> 
> _It is a message “for which the advertiser provided no support and, in fact, conceded that there was none,” the group says._
> 
> _The claim of saving $2,500 dates to 2005, when Wal-Mart, under mounting criticism from unions and elected leaders over its business practices, commissioned a study of its economic impact on Americans._
> 
> _An outside firm, paid by Wal-Mart, found that the company’s emphasis on low prices led to a 3 percent decline in overall consumer prices. That translated into $287 billion in savings in 2006, or $2,500 a household, whether a family shops at Wal-Mart or a competitor, according to the study._
> 
> _The watchdog group had no quibble with what it called the “express claim” of Wal-Mart’s ad — that it saves American families $2,500 a year. “The advertiser has provided adequate support for its intended message,” according to the report._
> 
> _Shopping at WalMart specifically does not save the average family $2,500 a year. But the effect of WalMart on the total economy means that the average family does save $2,500 a year on their shopping. This is, if you like, the consumer surplus of the big box stores having driven all those Mom and Pop stores out of business: and of having destroyed all of those jobs in the process._
> 
> _Or, if you prefer, that $287 billion a year. And please do note that that’s each and every year._
> 
> 
> _WalMart Destroys Jobs, Yes, But The Benefits Go To Consumers, Not The Top_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?
> 
> I'll tell you what. I'll open up a store. I'll pay my employees $1 an hour then charge much less for my products, and go to government and say "I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"
> 
> Is that small government mentality?
> 
> I don't get it.
Click to expand...


*
So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?
*
What the hell are you talking about?
They employ 1.4 million Americans.
Last year they paid $8 billion in income taxes, $7 billion in dividends, $10s of billions in sales taxes, billions more in payroll taxes. Free ride? LOL!

* I'll pay my employees $1 an hour...
 "I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"
*
As usual, liberal math is way off. Assume the stupid study by the anti-WalMart group was correct and each WalMart employee gets $2,103 in government benefits. If every employee works 30 hours a week, the government is adding $1.40 an hour.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
Click to expand...

*
in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth*

It's amazing what importing millions of low-skilled illegals does to the wages of low-skilled blacks.


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
> 
> 
> Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
Click to expand...


ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive. 


Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?


----------



## dblack

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth*
> 
> It's amazing what importing millions of low-skilled illegals does to the wages of low-skilled blacks.



Blondes Really Do Earn More Money


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
Click to expand...


*Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,.
*
Yeah, weird how they did so well when we were the only manufacturing power on the planet.
And we didn't have 15 million illegals taking the jobs at the lower end.


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.



Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
Click to expand...



It's amazing how this reality doesn't seem to sink in with these stupid people. We had the biggest middle class, biggest industry and best educational system on earth during this period. Yet, they double down on cut, slash and burn.

Why do they favor the super wealthy so much??? I don't think most of the loserterians are rich??? So it doesn't make sense.


----------



## ScienceRocks

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
Click to expand...



Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

There's nothing wrong about paying taxes as societies been doing so for thousands of years.


----------



## dblack

Matthew said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...


I'll walk you through it. If you refuse to pay your taxes, men with guns will come and take you to jail. Even if you voted against the taxes.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll walk you through it. If you refuse to pay your taxes, men with guns will come and take you to jail. Even if you voted against the taxes.
Click to expand...



It's called a society. Grow up dummy


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
Click to expand...



Try Somalia?


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll walk you through it. If you refuse to pay your taxes, men with guns will come and take you to jail. Even if you voted against the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a society. Grow up dummy
Click to expand...


That's the conceit of the statist in a nutshell - the idea that society and government are the same thing.


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Somalia?
Click to expand...


You mention Somalia a lot. Do you have investments there or something?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible.  That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
> 
> And don't try to blame Republicans.  People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades.  Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents.  Of course back then, people had pride.  Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance.  Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...


Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop. 

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either. 

_Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?
> *
> What the hell are you talking about?
> They employ 1.4 million Americans.
> Last year they paid $8 billion in income taxes, $7 billion in dividends, $10s of billions in sales taxes, billions more in payroll taxes. Free ride? LOL!
> 
> * I'll pay my employees $1 an hour...
> "I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"
> *
> As usual, liberal math is way off. Assume the stupid study by the anti-WalMart group was correct and each WalMart employee gets $2,103 in government benefits. If every employee works 30 hours a week, the government is adding $1.40 an hour.




What I'm talking about is that you're saying that they pay a lot of tax. But they're not paying their fair share of tax. There's a big difference. 

You seem to think that people who earn more should be able to get out of paying tax on things they should be paying tax on.

You talk about "liberal math" but your ignoring most of what I'm saying in the first place. It's not MY math that's off.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Click to expand...


Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
Click to expand...


No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person? 

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job. 

Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business. 

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Dad2three said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
Click to expand...


Correlation was that the beginning of that period, Great Society 200 Year Plan was just a scratch in Johnson's crotch. By 1980, it was in full swing and US was shifting from creditor to debtor nation.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll walk you through it. If you refuse to pay your taxes, men with guns will come and take you to jail. Even if you voted against the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a society. Grow up dummy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of the statist in a nutshell - the idea that society and government are the same thing.
Click to expand...



Your inability to accept reality, that the Gov't IS US, but that low informed tools like yourself ALLOW the plutocrats to capture Gov't and then  place in people of power, like Dubya/Ronnie who "think" Gov't is the problem, IS THE PROBLEM Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
Click to expand...


To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!


----------



## Dad2three

LeftofLeft said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That racism isn't a rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Systemic racism* is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book _Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations_. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
> 
> While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
> 
> The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
> 
> 1.* Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today.* Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
> 
> 
> Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1%  (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correlation was that the beginning of that period, Great Society 200 Year Plan was just a scratch in Johnson's crotch. By 1980, it was in full swing and US was shifting from creditor to debtor nation.
Click to expand...


Yeah, NOT that Ronnie gutted revenues AS he boomed spending when he gave tax cuts for the rich right? lol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
Click to expand...


People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today. 

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.  

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it. 

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.  

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians. 

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't. 

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Click to expand...


Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.  

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.  

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
Click to expand...


MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
Click to expand...


GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN


----------



## ScienceRocks

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
Click to expand...

The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
 those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
 Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
 If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze. 
 These programs directly affect us in a negative way.


----------



## Dad2three

Matthew said:


> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.




Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
Click to expand...



More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs


*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*



Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK. 
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
 Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
 Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
 Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.


----------



## sakinago

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left. 

This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
Click to expand...

Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
Click to expand...


Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.
> 
> This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?
Click to expand...


Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax  RATE with EFFECTIVE rates

Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive! 

HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?

Small Biz BS huh? lol




*Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’*


Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
Click to expand...

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
 My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
 My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound
Click to expand...


I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol



Min wages increases kills jobs? lol

HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'


*The Job Loss Myth*

*The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment*

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which *leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.*

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.

The Job Loss Myth


*Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash*


Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
Economy
*The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage*



Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.

There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:

*Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.*



*Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)

Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs. 

The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage
*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> 
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
Click to expand...



Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass! 

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.
> 
> This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax  RATE with EFFECTIVE rates
> 
> Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive!
> 
> HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?
> 
> Small Biz BS huh? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’*
> 
> 
> Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims
> 
> 14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*
Click to expand...

So you disagree with Kennedy's tax policy? And the results that brought?  

The Venezuelan model works I guess?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
> those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
> Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
> If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
> These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
Click to expand...

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year? 
 how long have you been on it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?
> *
> What the hell are you talking about?
> They employ 1.4 million Americans.
> Last year they paid $8 billion in income taxes, $7 billion in dividends, $10s of billions in sales taxes, billions more in payroll taxes. Free ride? LOL!
> 
> * I'll pay my employees $1 an hour...
> "I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"
> *
> As usual, liberal math is way off. Assume the stupid study by the anti-WalMart group was correct and each WalMart employee gets $2,103 in government benefits. If every employee works 30 hours a week, the government is adding $1.40 an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm talking about is that you're saying that they pay a lot of tax. But they're not paying their fair share of tax. There's a big difference.
> 
> You seem to think that people who earn more should be able to get out of paying tax on things they should be paying tax on.
> 
> You talk about "liberal math" but your ignoring most of what I'm saying in the first place. It's not MY math that's off.
Click to expand...


*What I'm talking about is that you're saying that they pay a lot of tax. But they're not paying their fair share of tax. There's a big difference.*

What is their fair share? How does that differ from the statutory tax rate?

*You seem to think that people who earn more should be able to get out of paying tax on things they should be paying tax on.*

You seem to be good at imagining, incorrectly, what I think.
WalMart has lots of employees, sells lots of stuff, pays lots of taxes and saves consumers lots of money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are?  Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare?  It doesn't benefit them.  But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
> 
> For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
> A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
> 
> This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
> 
> Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
> 
> Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
> Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
> 
> California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
> 
> Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
> 
> "
> The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
> 
> 
> $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
> 
> $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
> 
> $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
> 
> $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
> 
> $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
> 
> $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
> *
> Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
> If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
> *
> Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
> *
> Liberal math is funny.
> WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
> 
> It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
Click to expand...


*Walmart is a target because they make such big profits
*
What is their profit margin?

* pay such little wages
*
They pay the market rate or a bit higher.

*cost the country money
*
LOL!


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?



Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the door. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *List of assets owned by Walmart*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> *Walmart Stores, Inc.* is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.
> 
> 
> Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
> Walmart Discount Stores (498)
> Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
> Neighborhood Markets (381)
> Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
> Walmart.com
> 
> 
> Sam's Club (640)
> 
> Logistics
> *Walmart Transportation*
> Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)
> 
> 
> Walmart Realty
> 
> Claims Management.
> 
> Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.
> 
> The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.
> List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...


Sure, they're assets to someone, but they're LLC's NOT disclosed on SEC filings. So Walmart Stores, INC. doesn't own them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
> * Distribution Centers *
> 
> Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.
> 
> Walmart Logistics
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the door. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *List of assets owned by Walmart*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> *Walmart Stores, Inc.* is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.
> 
> 
> Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
> Walmart Discount Stores (498)
> Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
> Neighborhood Markets (381)
> Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
> Walmart.com
> 
> 
> Sam's Club (640)
> 
> Logistics
> *Walmart Transportation*
> Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)
> 
> 
> Walmart Realty
> 
> Claims Management.
> 
> Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.
> 
> The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.
> List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, they're assets to someone, but they're LLC's NOT disclosed on SEC filings. So Walmart Stores, INC. doesn't own them.
Click to expand...


WalMart says they own them.
Find proof that they don't.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.



I didn't write taxable income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
> You're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't write taxable income.
Click to expand...


Are you confusing revenue with income again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree your earlier claim of "food, shelter and transportation" inflation was inaccurate.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.  

_"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
Rush Limbaugh 

Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance. 

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution. 

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play. 

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.  

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.  

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.   

Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
Click to expand...



Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.  

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
Click to expand...


Oh, so that's where you get your economic education from.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
Click to expand...

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?


----------



## Papageorgio

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.*
> 
> Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business
Click to expand...


Lol! You are a funny guy!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Min wages increases kills jobs? lol
> 
> HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'
> 
> 
> *The Job Loss Myth*
> 
> *The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment*
> 
> The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which *leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.*
> 
> This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.
> 
> The Job Loss Myth
> 
> 
> *Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash*
> 
> 
> Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
> Economy
> *The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage*
> 
> 
> 
> Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.
> 
> On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.
> 
> There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:
> 
> *Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)
> 
> Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs.
> 
> The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage*
Click to expand...



*Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs*
James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / February 18, 2014 

Surprise, surprise: An analysis released today found that a proposed minimum wage hike would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced it agreed with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Of course the CBO did not put it that way. But the agency came to the same conclusion Heritage did: a $10.10 minimum wage has no historical precedent and would jettison hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The Heritage Foundation found this analysis questionable. The most accurate inflation measures show that the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour. So the President actually proposes hiking the minimum wage one-seventh above its all-time high. That would strongly encourage employers to hire fewer less skilled workers. Heritage Foundation analysis concluded that—even accounting for any stimulus effects—the proposed minimum wage hike would cost 300,000 jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office’s new report concurs. The CBO finds the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour—if analysts use the best available measure of inflation (as CBO and Heritage did). The CBO also found the effects of hiring cutbacks overwhelm any “stimulus” effects from the minimum wage. The agency concluded a $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs—with less than a fifth of those getting higher pay coming from families below the poverty level. If anything, Heritage’s estimates were conservative.

Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
> 
> Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
> 
> What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
> 
> It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
> 
> Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
> 
> I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.

This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.

What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.

I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
Click to expand...


Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare. 

Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?  

You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous. 

Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.
> 
> This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax  RATE with EFFECTIVE rates
> 
> Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive!
> 
> HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?
> 
> Small Biz BS huh? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’*
> 
> 
> Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims
> 
> 14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you disagree with Kennedy's tax policy? And the results that brought?
> 
> The Venezuelan model works I guess?
Click to expand...


You mean the *demand side* *LBJ *tax cuts Bubs? How'd Uncle Milties Chile free market experience work out again? About today's Honduras experiment? lol


Good little rightie though, ignore your ludicrous 14.5% posit, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
> 
> 
> *Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  *Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*
> 
> Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
Click to expand...




A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol

Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
Click to expand...



GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol

YOU FUKKN MORON


Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
*
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*

* A Yes.

(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *



*Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


* But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?







*

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*MORON*


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.
> 
> As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?
Click to expand...



YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs


Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so that's where you get your economic education from.
Click to expand...



Says the Klown who lives off right wing memes created by the plutocrats since Lewis Powell 1971 memo. Go google it dummy!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
> Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
> Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
> Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
> Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
> Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
Click to expand...

perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
 as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home. 
 but thanks for the laugh Corky.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
Click to expand...


Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.
> 
> As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs
> 
> 
> Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol
Click to expand...


Ah yes, your public education is showing again.  Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year?  Try again, and read slower this time.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Min wages increases kills jobs? lol
> 
> HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'
> 
> 
> *The Job Loss Myth*
> 
> *The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment*
> 
> The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which *leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.*
> 
> This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.
> 
> The Job Loss Myth
> 
> 
> *Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash*
> 
> 
> Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
> Economy
> *The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage*
> 
> 
> 
> Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.
> 
> On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.
> 
> There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:
> 
> *Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)
> 
> Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs.
> 
> The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs*
> James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / February 18, 2014
> 
> Surprise, surprise: An analysis released today found that a proposed minimum wage hike would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
> 
> Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced it agreed with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Of course the CBO did not put it that way. But the agency came to the same conclusion Heritage did: a $10.10 minimum wage has no historical precedent and would jettison hundreds of thousands of jobs.
> 
> The Heritage Foundation found this analysis questionable. The most accurate inflation measures show that the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour. So the President actually proposes hiking the minimum wage one-seventh above its all-time high. That would strongly encourage employers to hire fewer less skilled workers. Heritage Foundation analysis concluded that—even accounting for any stimulus effects—the proposed minimum wage hike would cost 300,000 jobs.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office’s new report concurs. The CBO finds the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour—if analysts use the best available measure of inflation (as CBO and Heritage did). The CBO also found the effects of hiring cutbacks overwhelm any “stimulus” effects from the minimum wage. The agency concluded a $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs—with less than a fifth of those getting higher pay coming from families below the poverty level. If anything, Heritage’s estimates were conservative.
> 
> Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs
Click to expand...



*The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income*

Raising the minimum wage would increase family income for many low-wage workers, moving some of them out of poverty.* But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated and the income* of those workers would fall substantially.








Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly.

*What Options for Increasing the Minimum Wage Did CBO Examine?*


For this report, CBO examined the effects on employment and family income of two options for increasing the federal minimum wage (see the figure below):



*Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. *Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase. *The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate.*




*Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income


Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.
*


The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income






FROM THE ACTUAL CBO, INCREASE WAGES FOR 16+ MILLION WORKERS? lol




*Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers*


On employment, CBO’s central estimate is that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3 percent decrease in employment and CBO acknowledges that the employment impact could be essentially zero*. But even these estimates do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment.*


* For example, seven Nobel Prize winners and more than 600 other economists recently stated that: “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”*


*Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers*


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
Click to expand...




*U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *








MORON


U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute



*Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*


*When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*


Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
*For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.



Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH
> 
> 
> Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO
> 
> 
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
> as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
> but thanks for the laugh Corky.
Click to expand...




Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE  DUMMY


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.
> 
> As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs
> 
> 
> Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, your public education is showing again.  Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year?  Try again, and read slower this time.
Click to expand...


$70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation  BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol
> 
> YOU FUKKN MORON
> 
> 
> Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> * A Yes.*
> 
> *(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
> Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
> 
> 
> * But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> *WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> *MORON*
Click to expand...




*Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending*
*By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


What Fannie and Freddie Knew
The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.

December 23, 2011

What Fannie and Freddie Knew



Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

*


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
> I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
> My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
> My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
> as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
> but thanks for the laugh Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE  DUMMY
Click to expand...

 can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
 and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
but again Corky, thanks for playing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.
> 
> As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs
> 
> 
> Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, your public education is showing again.  Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year?  Try again, and read slower this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation  BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?
Click to expand...


I don't know, I don't follow Heritage.  Perhaps you do. 

But my sources say that welfare pays near or over working people's wages.  In fact, in NYC for example, people on welfare make out better than the starting wage of a public school teacher.  

The US Census states that people on welfare live with most of the amenities that working people have such as microwave ovens, big screen televisions, air conditioning and automobiles among other things.  Plus there is no need to be concerned about family size.  While welfare does have limitations, welfare for children does not, and they pay quite handsomely  for children.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
Click to expand...

Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?

Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?


Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
Click to expand...

nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.



But these people HAVE JOBS. Why should people with jobs be starving? I mean, who takes on a job where they don't earn enough money? Minimum wage would stop Walmart taking the piss, take away the welfare, have companies PAY their employees at the very least a wage which allows them to live.

The difference between European countries and the US is that if you have a job in Europe you'll almost certainly be able to live. Also you know you'll get healthcare. In the US you have a job you might not be able to do either.

Yes, some countries have no welfare and you don't work you don't eat. But we're talking about one of the richest countries in the world here, not Nepal, not Somalia. But the USA. 

I would choose the cheaper option unless I knew the more expensive option were worth paying more. That's not the point. If I could have everything free, I'd go for free. However I don't get free food, i don't get free housing, I don't get free much at all. I pay my way, I pay the market price if I could afford it. 

The point here is that Walmart is offering lower prices because it's saving money due to government policies on health and welfare. Is that right? No it isn't. Capitalism dictates (you know, what Republicans like) that companies survive or not based on their own merits, not on whether they can bribe officials, or whether they can take advantage of welfare. 


Companies don't create jobs as a social welfare program. But they're willing to use social welfare to make more profits. Hmmm....


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
> 
> 
> Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
> 
> 
> Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
> 
> 
> 
> US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
> 
> WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol
> 
> YOU FUKKN MORON
> 
> 
> Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> * A Yes.*
> 
> *(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
> Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
> 
> 
> * But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> *WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> *MORON*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending*
> *By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published: September 30, 1999
> 
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
> 
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'
> 
> By Carol D. Leonnig
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, June 10, 2008
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> 
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.
> 
> December 23, 2011
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
> Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
> *
Click to expand...



lol, SERIOUSLY?  BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT? 

IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D  SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?

HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS



*NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:*



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*


*(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)*


*GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?*





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and* Bush's regulators let them*



WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?









SEE THAT?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and *the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf






*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.* 


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!


*June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*







* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!
> 
> Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian  wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!
> 
> 
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
> as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
> but thanks for the laugh Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE  DUMMY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
> and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
> but again Corky, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...



No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy


----------



## Papageorgio

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, something is very wrong.  But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare.  Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability.  People put themselves on welfare.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale.  Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
> 
> Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management.  Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits.  Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time.  So does their warehouse people.  Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
> 
> Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them.  It's an option.  People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs.  It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
> 
> _Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage!  _No, people should make themselves worth a living wage.  Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
Click to expand...


And why would anyone think that Hillary who is tied deeply to Wall St. would change a thing?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
> 
> GOV'T  POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
> 
> YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous.  I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working.  Just ask, and I'll post them.
> 
> As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that.  Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely.  And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are too ignorant to actually have a conversation with Bubs
> 
> 
> Right wing MYTH that those not working can make $70,000 a year right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, your public education is showing again.  Where did I use the calculation of $70,000 per year?  Try again, and read slower this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $70,000 wasn't that Heritage Foundation  BOGUS number they were throwing around a few years ago DUMMY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, I don't follow Heritage.  Perhaps you do.
> 
> But my sources say that welfare pays near or over working people's wages.  In fact, in NYC for example, people on welfare make out better than the starting wage of a public school teacher.
> 
> The US Census states that people on welfare live with most of the amenities that working people have such as microwave ovens, big screen televisions, air conditioning and automobiles among other things.  Plus there is no need to be concerned about family size.  While welfare does have limitations, welfare for children does not, and they pay quite handsomely  for children.
Click to expand...



Weird AS poverty rates for children has increased the last 16 years after welfare reform, you're saying kids are making out? GAWD YOU ARE DUMB


Give me your fukkn source so  I can DESTROY the BULLSHIT TALKING POINT BUBS! 


Yeah, a first world nation has poor with micro's, AC and big screen TV's? lol


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
Click to expand...



Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?


DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!


----------



## MikeK

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


Regardless of whether or not they are selfish and don't care about others the upper income brackets should be more heavily taxed in the interest of maintaining a healthy redistribution of what otherwise would be _hoarded_ wealth.  And you are correct in that it won't hurt the super-rich to be taxed more.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dad2three said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
> 
> Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
> 
> Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down.  Don't act like your not guilty of participation either.  We all do it.
> 
> Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products.  That's it in a nut shell.  Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it.  Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
> 
> Well it doesn't work that way in Realville.  In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both.  The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism.  Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol
> 
> YOU FUKKN MORON
> 
> 
> Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> * A Yes.*
> 
> *(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
> Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
> 
> 
> * But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> *WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> *MORON*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending*
> *By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published: September 30, 1999
> 
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
> 
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'
> 
> By Carol D. Leonnig
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, June 10, 2008
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> 
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.
> 
> December 23, 2011
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
> Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, SERIOUSLY?  BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?
> 
> IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D  SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?
> 
> HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS
> 
> 
> 
> *NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:*
> 
> 
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> *A Yes.*
> 
> 
> *(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)*
> 
> 
> *GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and* Bush's regulators let them*
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEE THAT?
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and *the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.*
> 
> 
> More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis
> 
> 
> YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!
> 
> 
> *June 17, 2004*
> 
> *(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. *
> 
> 
> *Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *
> 
> 
> Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Click to expand...


You are such tool.  What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans?  That's right, HUD which oversees F and F.  If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.  

Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime.  Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market. 

Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers.  They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses.  So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway.  They cut their risk. 

Banks made their money off of processing fees.  It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam.  While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
> how long have you been on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
> as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
> but thanks for the laugh Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE  DUMMY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
> and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
> but again Corky, thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy
Click to expand...

again you are talking out of your welfare sucking ass.
 and yes snap is also welfare, again, who pays. ( not you I know) 
 Christ you are one huge retard Corky.


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol
> 
> YOU FUKKN MORON
> 
> 
> Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> * A Yes.*
> 
> *(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
> Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
> 
> 
> * But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> *WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> *MORON*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending*
> *By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published: September 30, 1999
> 
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
> 
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'
> 
> By Carol D. Leonnig
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, June 10, 2008
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> 
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.
> 
> December 23, 2011
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
> Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, SERIOUSLY?  BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?
> 
> IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D  SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?
> 
> HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS
> 
> 
> 
> *NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:*
> 
> 
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> *A Yes.*
> 
> 
> *(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)*
> 
> 
> *GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and* Bush's regulators let them*
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEE THAT?
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and *the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.*
> 
> 
> More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis
> 
> 
> YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!
> 
> 
> *June 17, 2004*
> 
> *(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. *
> 
> 
> *Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *
> 
> 
> Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such tool.  What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans?  That's right, HUD which oversees F and F.  If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.
> 
> Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime.  Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market.
> 
> Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers.  They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses.  So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway.  They cut their risk.
> 
> Banks made their money off of processing fees.  It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam.  While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.
Click to expand...



GAWD GROW A FUKKN BRAIN


*Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.*

....
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between *2004 and 2006,* when subprime lending was exploding*, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent*, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.* One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.*

*During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market*


*.* *In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.*

*In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.*




*THERE WAS A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE DUMMY, DOZENS OF NATIONS, CAUSED BY THE DEMS? lol*


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks*. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.



*Nobody forced the big five investment banks (DOWN TO ZERO TODAY!!!!) to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> A MANDATORY FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE DUMMY? lol
> 
> Your inability to use reason and instead just attack IS noted and discarded Bubs. NEVER got any type of welfare, unless tax credits for my rentals is considered welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you should actually look into the reality of welfare. there is not mandatory five year limit that is adhered to.
> as far as you owning rentals? LOL, based on what you post here, you are really not bright enough to own a rental, let alone your own home.
> but thanks for the laugh Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, YOU deny REALITY . I'm shocked Bubs, shocked, THERE IS A FIVE YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE. SNAP ISN'T WELFARE  DUMMY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can the states continue paying you your welfare after the 5 years? does that not still come from the taxpayer?
> and yes, TANF is welfare, it is free money that you don't earn, it comes from responsible people that actually work.
> but again Corky, thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No Bibba, NO STATE pays TANF after five years. NONE. Thanks for playing dummy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you are talking out of your welfare sucking ass.
> and yes snap is also welfare, again, who pays. ( not you I know)
> Christ you are one huge retard Corky.
Click to expand...


Why is it sooo many righties are tools and NEVER have ANYTHING but right wing memes to present as proof Bubs,, like you? Just ANOTHER CONServative who hates US. Shocking


----------



## frigidweirdo

Papageorgio said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
> 
> Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
> 
> Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable.  It works that way with most companies that use manual labor.  If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
> 
> Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade.  You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
> 
> Big profits?  So what?  Companies don't base everything on profits.  Companies are more focused on growth.  That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
> 
> After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it?  Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth?  Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses.  You make your money by how much your investment grows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
> 
> But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
> 
> Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
> 
> Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
> 
> The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would anyone think that Hillary who is tied deeply to Wall St. would change a thing?
Click to expand...


Why would anyone think that any presidential candidate will change a thing??

It's beyond me. Then again I'm not Democrat or Republican. So.... I don't like either of them.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
> 
> Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
> 
> One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs.  Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians.  The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
> 
> If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
> 
> What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government.  Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage.  That should be up to the individual.  Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs.  I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
Click to expand...

No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?


----------



## Dad2three

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
> 
> Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.
> 
> _"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."_
> Rush Limbaugh
> 
> Wanna hear about good government policy?  Let's take the housing bubble for instance.
> 
> Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people.  These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.
> 
> Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans.  It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.
> 
> What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city.  These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.  They came in droves, and with them, the crime.
> 
> Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs.  We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year.  Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.
> 
> This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom."  If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.
> 
> Government policy destroyed my suburb.  It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around.  Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T AND DEMS FORCED THEM? lol
> 
> YOU FUKKN MORON
> 
> 
> Like the US in the 1880's,1920's ,Ronnie's S&L crisis, DUBYA ALLOWED THE FREE MARKETS TO GO HOG WILD DUMMY
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> * A Yes.*
> 
> *(NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS BUBS?)*
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*
> 
> Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
> Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
> Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
> Routinely taking credit for the housing market
> Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
> Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
> Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
> Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2003)
> Forcing GSEs (F/F) to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets 2004)
> Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
> PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
> 
> 
> * But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*
> 
> 
> 
> *WHAT DID THE DEMS DO 2004-2007 BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> *MORON*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending*
> *By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published: September 30, 1999
> 
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
> 
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> Subprime Loans Labeled 'Affordable'
> 
> By Carol D. Leonnig
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, June 10, 2008
> 
> How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
> 
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> The SEC shows how the toxic twins turbocharged the housing bubble.
> 
> December 23, 2011
> 
> What Fannie and Freddie Knew
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
> Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27, 2008
> 
> Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, SERIOUSLY?  BUBBA, WHY'S CLINTON'S LAWS TAKE SO LONG TO TAKE EFFECT?
> 
> IF THE FEDERAL GOV'T REQUIRED BANKSTERS TO LOAN, WHY'D  SO MANY GET SUED AND SETTLE ?
> 
> HINT GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES AND BS
> 
> 
> 
> *NOW REREAD THIS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION:*
> 
> 
> 
> "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
> 
> *Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*
> 
> *A Yes.*
> 
> 
> *(YOU KNOW WHAT NO/LOW DOC LOANS ARE RIGHT BUBS? HINT, NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY GOV'T BACKING, FROM HUD, F/F, ETC)*
> 
> 
> *GIVE ME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED THIS TO HAPPEN BUBS?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
> 
> A Banks.
> 
> Q WHY??!?!!!?!
> 
> A Two reasons, greed and* Bush's regulators let them*
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT TOOK SO LONG IF IT WAS CLINTON?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEE THAT?
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
> 
> 
> A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and *the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*
> 
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.*
> 
> 
> More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis
> 
> 
> YES, DUBYA HOSED F/F AND GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE AFTER CLINTON HAD GOOD QUALITY LOANS WITH F/F HOWEVER!
> 
> 
> *June 17, 2004*
> 
> *(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. *
> 
> 
> *Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *
> 
> 
> Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such tool.  What guidelines do banks have to follow in order to give these types of loans?  That's right, HUD which oversees F and F.  If they don't follow those guidelines, they can't sell their losing mortgages to the secondary market.
> 
> Banks basically give two types of loans: prime and subprime.  Prime is where the bank uses their own money, and subprime which was created at the end of the Carter administration are loans that can be sold off to the market.
> 
> Banks will not give prime mortgages to unworthy borrowers.  They're not going to risk their own money on high potential losses.  So they give out subprime because they are gong to sell those mortgages off anyway.  They cut their risk.
> 
> Banks made their money off of processing fees.  It was designed that way for banks to get involved in this government scam.  While some banks refused to participate, others didn't want to miss out on the action.
Click to expand...



GUIDELINES? I GAVE YOU THAT OVER HALF OF LOANS IN 2006 WERE NO/LOW DOC LOANS (NOT MEETING CREDIT STANDARDS FOR A PRIME LOAN!!!!). WHAT FUKKN GUIDELINES?


*Jun 16th 2005*

*The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pop*


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by _The Economist_, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.


http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


*THAT CLINTON? DEMS? FANNIE? FREDDIE? LOL*


US:


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!
> 
> 
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Social Programs aren't the responsibility of the politicians. I'm saying the politicians have been bought and do the bidding of the big companies.
> 
> This is about whether the rich should pay higher taxes. Yes. They don't because the money pays the politicians which then allow breaks all over the place. Making all sorts of chances for the rich to not pay their fair amount of tax.
> 
> What Walmart pays its workers should not be anything to do with the government. However the govt has made it easy for Walmart to get workers at such a low cost because the govt is willing to back them up. Stop this, it's not right. If you work you should not be getting welfare, the company should be paying a decent wage.
> 
> I don't know of other countries which pay workers welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
Click to expand...


Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!


LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!


Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare





EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?


You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
Click to expand...

you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
 and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
 Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
Click to expand...




*What You Need To Know About Maryland's
TANF (Welfare) Program*

*What is TANF?*


TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).


*You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
*Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
*The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.


What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.


DUMBASS...


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
Click to expand...

look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
 yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
 Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.


----------



## danielpalos

Maryland Patriot said:


> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare


What happens if they still have the same conditions preventing full employment after five years?


----------



## danielpalos

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
Click to expand...

only bad capitalists and lousy socialists come up with plans like these.  why not end a, natural rate of unemployment instead.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
Click to expand...


Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.

LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol


----------



## Dad2three

danielpalos said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if they still have the same conditions preventing full employment after five years?
Click to expand...



Doesn't matter. ALL benefits stop after 5 years


----------



## Dad2three

danielpalos said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only bad capitalists and lousy socialists come up with plans like these.  why not end a, natural rate of unemployment instead.
Click to expand...





You can thank the GOP for that, yes I believe 99% ARE bad capitalists with their plutocrats over the 90% governing


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the hearing, the District's TANF program was contrasted with Maryland's. Although the state has a population of more than 6 million, only about 25,000 Maryland families receive benefits, all but 10 percent of whom are removed from the rolls in five years or less.
> Bill puts 5-year limit on welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
Click to expand...

I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license. 
 How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY state has a 5 year limit, a few even less (red states of course). AND?
> 
> 
> You do realize DC ISN'T a state right Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
Click to expand...



Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?


Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that Maryland is a state dont you Corky?
> and, if you get someone to help you read you will see that the part of the article that I printed for you did reference Maryland, a state.
> Try to keep up with the rest of the class Corky, this main lining stuff really is not working well in your case is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
Click to expand...

What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
 lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
 Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs. 
 but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
 and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> 
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
Click to expand...


Must be difficult to live in the world YOU live in Bubs, let me guess, you listen to hate talk radio most of your day? lol

*New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed*


*A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter* *impersonation *on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, *is virtually non-existent*.In an exhaustive public records search,


News21 sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation


New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations


*BUSH DOJ UNPRECEDENTED FIVE YEAR, 300+ MILLION VOTES, PROSECUTED ZERO FOR IMPERSONATING OTHERS AT THE POLL (THE TYPE OF FRAUD GOP VOTER RESTRICTION LAWS PREVENT!!!!)  *


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What You Need To Know About Maryland's*
> *TANF (Welfare) Program*
> 
> *What is TANF?*
> 
> 
> TANF is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. TANF is the cash benefit program that replaced the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Program on January 1, 1997. In Maryland the program is called Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA).
> 
> 
> *You can *only get TANF for 60 months or 5 years in your life time. After that you cannot get welfare for yourself but your children will continue to receive benefits
> *Any months* you spend on TCA after January 1, 1997 counts toward the 60 months or the 5 year limit. Time spent on welfare before January 1, 1997 does not count.
> *The 5 year limit* applies to all adults and heads of household. Heads of household are people who sign an application for TCA for themselves and a child.
> 
> 
> What You Should Know About Maryland's TANF (Walfare) Program.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS...
> 
> 
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
Click to expand...


According to you, "illegals" in Maryland, outnumber US citizens  and voted themselves this stuff? lol

Fukkn wingnutter!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be difficult to live in the world YOU live in Bubs, let me guess, you listen to hate talk radio most of your day? lol
> 
> *New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed*
> 
> 
> *A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter* *impersonation *on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, *is virtually non-existent*.In an exhaustive public records search,
> 
> 
> News21 sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
> 
> 
> *BUSH DOJ UNPRECEDENTED FIVE YEAR, 300+ MILLION VOTES, PROSECUTED ZERO FOR IMPERSONATING OTHERS AT THE POLL (THE TYPE OF FRAUD GOP VOTER RESTRICTION LAWS PREVENT!!!!)  *
Click to expand...

WOW, you mean, the democrat election officers in a Democrat state didn't tell on themselves?
 that just F-ing amazing.
 Hey, I bet if we ask rich people if they pay enough tax, they would say yes. Therefore based on your logic, the rich do pay enough tax.
 What a moron.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> look corky, does it not say that there are at least 10% that are on the program for more than the 5 years? Well does it?
> yes it does, so you have been proven wrong once again Corky.
> Now go sit at the mailbox and wait for your check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you, "illegals" in Maryland, outnumber US citizens  and voted themselves this stuff? lol
> 
> Fukkn wingnutter!
Click to expand...

Won by a slim enough margin that their illegal vote made the difference.
 but no sense in trying explain that to you is there butt chunk.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be difficult to live in the world YOU live in Bubs, let me guess, you listen to hate talk radio most of your day? lol
> 
> *New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed*
> 
> 
> *A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter* *impersonation *on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, *is virtually non-existent*.In an exhaustive public records search,
> 
> 
> News21 sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation
> 
> 
> New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations
> 
> 
> *BUSH DOJ UNPRECEDENTED FIVE YEAR, 300+ MILLION VOTES, PROSECUTED ZERO FOR IMPERSONATING OTHERS AT THE POLL (THE TYPE OF FRAUD GOP VOTER RESTRICTION LAWS PREVENT!!!!)  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, you mean, the democrat election officers in a Democrat state didn't tell on themselves?
> that just F-ing amazing.
> Hey, I bet if we ask rich people if they pay enough tax, they would say yes. Therefore based on your logic, the rich do pay enough tax.
> What a moron.
Click to expand...



Weird, you'd think with the BILLIONS of dollars floating around the right wing "think tanks" and public policy groups, they be able to prove YOUR posit in at least ONE county in the nation right Bubba? OOPS


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Buba, let's "believe" an newspaper article from Tim Craig over the maryland STATES link saying YOU are full of shit Bubs.
> 
> LOVE the way they source their info too Bubs, lol
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Maryland you butt chunk, I know whats going on here, I see it. Just like you would claim that illegals cant vote. they do here. they get registered when they get their drivers license.
> How about you, you have any credibility in this matter? didn't think so Corky. Now run along I think its time for your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's there gain you ask butt chunk?
> lets see, they voted themselves in state tuition, they vote themselves public assistance, housing, and money for the hate group CASA, not to mention they vote in presidential elections.
> Hopefully our new American Governor can put an end to this and get owemalley behind bars where he belongs.
> but, I'm sure your welfare collecting ass knows way more than someone that lives in the areas being discussed and that has worked for the government and seen it.
> and I don't really care about your link, is that something that comes with the talking points attached to your welfare check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you, "illegals" in Maryland, outnumber US citizens  and voted themselves this stuff? lol
> 
> Fukkn wingnutter!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won by a slim enough margin that their illegal vote made the difference.
> but no sense in trying explain that to you is there butt chunk.
Click to expand...


Oh right, just do the usual right wing BS, argue a premise that through logic AND credible links, has been debunked *shaking head*

Dumbfuk


----------



## Arizona Willie

If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.

Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.

If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?

They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.

Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.

It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.

*So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*


*It is illegal to ask when registering.*


*It is illegal to ask when voting.*

*The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*

Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.

Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.

They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?

*=====================*


Dad2three said:


> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
Click to expand...




WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol


*HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY

IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*


*Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
*


A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.

All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.

*Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*


Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.

The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*

Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”

In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*

An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*

According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*

Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.

*As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
 
*Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*



There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*

The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*

The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*


Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center


*UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*


*The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud


----------



## dblack

tldr;


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
Click to expand...




*Register to Vote*


The National Mail Voter Registration Form can be used to register U.S. citizens to vote, to update registration information due to a change of name, make a change of address or to register with a political party. *You must follow the state-specific instructions listed for your state. 




Register to Vote | The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
*


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
Click to expand...




*Citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal registration form requires people to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. States can use their own forms, but they must be equivalent to the federal form.*


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> 
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
Click to expand...


The American Immigration Council?  You're just a megaphone for regurgitating leftwing propaganda.  Aren't you?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Immigration Council?  You're just a megaphone for regurgitating leftwing propaganda.  Aren't you?
Click to expand...


Your ad hom noted Bubs, next time TRY to refute SOMETHING about what's been posited??? lol


----------



## Arizona Willie

Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.

I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.

I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.

I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.

I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.

I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.

All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.

Period.

The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
*===================*


Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
Click to expand...


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Arizona Willie said:


> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, YOU LIED Bubs


*IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*

*Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?

 GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*



* Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) 


*

*Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.  

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*




*The GOP War on Voting*


*In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *

The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone


*Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*

You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*

It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.


Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
*
*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.
Click to expand...


Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol
Click to expand...

not really, its just that you are too stupid to realize everyone here is handing you your mooching ass.
 checking the yes block on a form that you are a citizen is a bit different than proving it. But, you wouldn't understand that so I wont go into it too much. Don't like to confuse the retards.
 Carry on Corky.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not really, its just that you are too stupid to realize everyone here is handing you your mooching ass.
> checking the yes block on a form that you are a citizen is a bit different than proving it. But, you wouldn't understand that so I wont go into it too much. Don't like to confuse the retards.
> Carry on Corky.
Click to expand...



Prove it? Why? THERE IS NO MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD HAPPENING. Of course there IS a GOP/CONservative VOTER RESTRICTION effort going on


* Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) *

*Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation*, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote.* I don't want everybody to vote. *Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. *As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*



*LMAO*


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not really, its just that you are too stupid to realize everyone here is handing you your mooching ass.
> checking the yes block on a form that you are a citizen is a bit different than proving it. But, you wouldn't understand that so I wont go into it too much. Don't like to confuse the retards.
> Carry on Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it? Why? THERE IS NO MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD HAPPENING. Of course there IS a GOP/CONservative VOTER RESTRICTION effort going on
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation*, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote.* I don't want everybody to vote. *Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. *As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> *LMAO*
Click to expand...

prove it? 
 The illegals in Maryland register to vote thanks to the anti American O'Malley.
 so when those illegals go and vote, that's fraud. GET IT NUMBNUTS??
 Here's the thing about the democrats, they only look at the actual polling place, and if Pedro got his voter registration illegally, it does not indicate to them that he is voting illegally. GET IT NUMBNUTS?
 why do you think the left is so against voter ID, Do you really think its because the right is trying to keep blacks from voting? are you really that much of a retard? if so, blow on the little tube near your mouth and back your wheel chair away from the computer.


----------



## Arizona Willie

Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form

This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.

My bad.

And now you're on the ignore list.

*==================*




Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
Click to expand...


----------



## Arizona Willie

Yep not one thing in his post refuted the FACT that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register with the Federal Voter Registration form or when you go to vote.

It's like he doesn't understand the word " illegal ".

And many others I suspect.

It's sad too because I believe he claims to be liberal but so am I  but I also am against illegal aliens.

I feel sorry for them too.

But our tax money should go to American citizens and jobs within this country should be done by Americans.

My liberalism does have a limit and right wingers are --- on rare occasions --- right. And when they are I will caucus with them. But it doesn't happen often. Usually I spend my time schooling drooling right wingers 

But this is an especially sad case.

He not only doesn't understand that he completely failed to refute my FACTS.
He didn't even attempt to.
Instead he did an ad hominem attack ( said I was lying ) and then crapped a bunch of propaganda all over our screens and what he was posting HAD NOTHING to do with the FACTS I posted.

I don't like to do it but some people just don't deserve to be bothered with, and he made my IGNORE list.

I guess he can be proud of that 

*==================*



Maryland Patriot said:


> Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol


not really, its just that you are too stupid to realize everyone here is handing you your mooching ass.
checking the yes block on a form that you are a citizen is a bit different than proving it. But, you wouldn't understand that so I wont go into it too much. Don't like to confuse the retards.
Carry on Corky.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> 
> Dad has nothing, don't know why you even try. He is a welfare sucking mooch that does not want to see his free ride end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who gets getting paddled on his ass by me, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not really, its just that you are too stupid to realize everyone here is handing you your mooching ass.
> checking the yes block on a form that you are a citizen is a bit different than proving it. But, you wouldn't understand that so I wont go into it too much. Don't like to confuse the retards.
> Carry on Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it? Why? THERE IS NO MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD HAPPENING. Of course there IS a GOP/CONservative VOTER RESTRICTION effort going on
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation*, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote.* I don't want everybody to vote. *Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. *As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> *LMAO*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prove it?
> The illegals in Maryland register to vote thanks to the anti American O'Malley.
> so when those illegals go and vote, that's fraud. GET IT NUMBNUTS??
> Here's the thing about the democrats, they only look at the actual polling place, and if Pedro got his voter registration illegally, it does not indicate to them that he is voting illegally. GET IT NUMBNUTS?
> why do you think the left is so against voter ID, Do you really think its because the right is trying to keep blacks from voting? are you really that much of a retard? if so, blow on the little tube near your mouth and back your wheel chair away from the computer.
Click to expand...



Sorry Bubba, you "believing" crap mean NOTHING. Every couple years YOU Klowns come out with this crap about the "voter fraud" BS, IT ALWAYS turns out to be ANOTHER right wing LIE. ALWAYS

Weird the right wing CAN'T show ANY actual CREDIBLE study that says there is ANY voter fraud issue. 

Not ME thinking the GOP/Right wingers are trying to restrict the vote, its was the FOUNDER OF RIGHT WING HERITAGE SAYING HE DIDN'T WANT EVERYONE TO VOTE DUMBSHIT



One day earlier, the *Government Accountability Office released a comprehensive study showing that strict voter-ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee decreased turnout by two to three points from 2008 to 2012, compared with similar states with no voter-ID laws*, which _The Washington Post _estimates led to 122,000 fewer votes. *Turnout dropped most sharply among young, newly registered and African-American voters.*



The GOP Is Winning the War on Voting




Republicans generally argue that restrictions on registering and voting are about the “integrity” of elections, but have never been able to prove that any American election has been stolen by in-person voter fraud. *However, occasionally, a few overly honest Republicans let their true motives slip out.*

That’s what happened when Don Yelton, a now-former North Carolina Republican official, spoke to _The Daily Show’_s Aasif Mandvi.

Yelton admitted that North Carolina’s new voting law, which includes a flurry of new provisions including voter ID, is *“going to kick Democrats in the butt.” In one interview, he stumbled through every dumb cliché of the modern racist, including referencing his one black friend and showing disdain for “lazy blacks” who want the government to give them everything.*


http://www.nationalmemo.com/6-other...ns-are-just-about-disenfranchising-democrats/



*Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters*


It’s been clear for a while that the voter-identification laws the GOP has been pushing are aimed at suppressing Democratic constituencies. And Republicans are fessing up, says Jamelle Bouie.


Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters


----------



## Dad2three

Arizona Willie said:


> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, YOU say it so it MUST be true right Bubba/ Why would an "illegal" vote Bubba, it's a *FELONY*. What's their gain again dummy?
> 
> 
> Thanks for playing though, the link I gave from YOUR state says YOU are full of shit however!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!

ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
Click to expand...


It doesn't require you to prove you're a citizen, dumbass.  How many times does someone have to pound that into your skull before you finally get it?


----------



## Boss

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors. 

To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it. 

Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich. 

Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system. 

Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you register using the federal voter registration Form, it is ILLEGAL to ask for proof of your citizenship.
> 
> Raza tells all its members that it is illegal to ask them for proof of citizenship if they register to vote.
> 
> If a politician is promising illegals that he will make it possible for them to stay, why wouldn’t an illegal vote for him?
> 
> They know they can’t be caught because it is illegal to demand proof of citizenship.
> 
> Have I said this enough times? It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when using the federal voter registration form.
> 
> It is also illegal to demand proof of citizenship when you go to the polls to vote. And, of course, if you use a mail in ballot you don’t even have to go to the polls.
> 
> *So who is going to catch the illegal alien voting?*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when registering.*
> 
> 
> *It is illegal to ask when voting.*
> 
> *The ONLY way illegals get caught voting is when they get called for Jury Duty and claim to be illegal. They often don’t realize that when they register to vote their name also goes into the list of potential jurors and they can be called on to vote.*
> 
> Why would illegals worry about a felony when it is almost impossible to be caught and they are already criminals. If they have illegally entered the U.S. more than once THAT is a felony.
> 
> Most of them have stolen someone's ID and Social Security and Medicare in order to work AND THAT IS A FELONY.
> 
> They are already GUILTY OF COMMITTING FELONIES why would they worry about one more?
> 
> *=====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
Click to expand...

And nobody cheats on their taxes. It says right on that GAWDDAM TAX FORM THAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND CERTIFYING ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
So whats your problem with taxes, everyone pays exactly what they are supposed to. THEY SIGN AND SAY ITS ACCURATE 
 Frikken helmet wearing short bus riding retard. Must have been lead on those bus windows, you evidently ingested it somewhere.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't require you to prove you're a citizen, dumbass.  How many times does someone have to pound that into your skull before you finally get it?
Click to expand...


PROVE? FOR THE MYTHICAL VOTER FRAUD? lol

CONservatives ALWAYS for a more intrusive, bigger Gubrmnt when NOT needed! 

BUT THE DUMBASS SAID YOU CAN'T EVEN ASK DUMMY!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
Click to expand...



GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol




Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW YOU HIT ALL THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, DEVOID OF HONESTY HOWEVER, lol
> 
> 
> *HINT, NOT A FELONY TO OVERSTAY A VISA OR CROSS THE US BORDER "ILLEGALLY" DUMMY
> 
> IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> 
> *Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud
> *
> 
> 
> A wave of restrictive voting laws is sweeping the nation. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law counts “at least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.” Bills requiring voters “to show photo identification in order to vote” were signed into law in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Adding insult to injury, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee went a step further and required voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote. In addition, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico embarked upon ultimately fruitless “purges” of their voter rolls for the ostensible purpose of sweeping away anyone who might be a non-U.S. citizen.
> 
> All of these actions have been undertaken in the name of preventing voter fraud, particularly illegal voting by non-citizens. Proponents of harsh voter laws often assert, without a shred of hard evidence, that hordes of immigrants are swaying election results by wheedling their way into the voting booth. However, repeated investigations over the years have found no indication that systematic vote fraud by non-citizens is anything other than the product of overactive imaginations.
> 
> *Fighting Phantoms: No Evidence of Widespread or Systematic Vote Fraud by Non-Citizens*
> 
> 
> Election experts tend to agree that modern-day voter fraud is a very rare occurrence in the United States, primarily because it is so irrational. The potential payoff (a vote) is not worth the risk of jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and—in the case of non-citizens—possibly deportation.
> 
> The Brennan Center succinctly summarizes this point in a 2006 fact sheet: *“Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic.”*
> 
> Researcher Lorraine Minnite writes in a 2010 book that “there is good evidence to support the conclusion (1) that voters rarely fraudulently register or vote; (2) that protections against voter fraud are sufficiently provided for in federal and state law; and (3) that from a cost-benefit perspective this makes it irrational for voters to cast fraudulent ballots.”
> 
> In 2012, News21 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 and found “that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.” *Specifically, News21 “turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.”*
> 
> An October 18, 2010, story in the *National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic.*
> 
> According to a 2007 report written by Minnite for Project Vote,* “government records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. This includes 19 people who were ineligible to vote, five because they were still under state supervision for felony convictions, and 14 who were not U.S. citizens; and five people who voted twice in the same election, once in Kansas and again in Missouri.”*
> 
> Similarly, a 2005 report by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio found that a grand total of four votes cast in the state’s 2002 and 2004 general elections were in some way “fraudulent,” amounting to _.00000044%_ of all votes cast.
> 
> *As the Brennan Center notes, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to come across an actual case of voter fraud.*
> 
> *Instances of Noncitizens Registering to Vote are Also Exceedingly Rare*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are registering to vote. Nevertheless, in recent months several states have asked the federal government for access to immigration data in order to determine whether non-citizens are on the voter registration rolls. Specifically, the states have sought access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which is designed to verify eligibility for benefits or services at the time an application is initially filed. *SAVE is not a comprehensive, up-to-date list of who is a citizen and who is not. Not surprisingly, these attempts by states to use SAVE to find noncitizens on the voter rolls have produced few results.*
> 
> The Associated Press reported in September 2012 that efforts by state election officials in Colorado and Florida to turn up cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote have yielded very few results. *In Colorado, an initial list of 11,805 suspected noncitizens on the voter rolls has shrunk to 141, which amounts to .004 percent of the state’s 3.5 million voters.* *Likewise, in Florida, a list of 180,000 suspected noncitizens on the rolls has shrunk to 207, which accounts for .001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. It turns out that some of the individuals in question did not even know they were registered to vote, or were actually U.S. citizens legally entitled to vote.*
> 
> The _New York Times_ notes that, in 2011, “New Mexico’s wasteful investigation of 64,000 ‘suspicious’ voter registrations* found only 19 cases of voters who may have been noncitizens.”*
> Chicken Little in the Voting Booth: The Non-Existent Problem of Non-Citizen Voter Fraud | Immigration Policy Center
> 
> 
> *UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud*
> 
> 
> *The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there's no evidence of that.*
> UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And nobody cheats on their taxes. It says right on that GAWDDAM TAX FORM THAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND CERTIFYING ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
> So whats your problem with taxes, everyone pays exactly what they are supposed to. THEY SIGN AND SAY ITS ACCURATE
> Frikken helmet wearing short bus riding retard. Must have been lead on those bus windows, you evidently ingested it somewhere.
Click to expand...



Good Bubba, YOU agree they CAN AND DO ASK IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN. Thanks for agreeing with me, tell the dumbass about it though Bubs


AGAIN, GOP's voter restriction AKA voter ID laws, are  a solution when there ISN'T a problem!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you killed a lot of electrons but not one word of your post refuted ANYTHING I said.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship if a person registers to vote using the Federal Voter Registration Form === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you vote at the polls === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said entering the U.S. illegally a second time was a felony === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said illegal aliens steal American citizens Identification and Social Security and Medicare numbers in order to work === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> I said that an illegal alien who is already a felon ( Identity theft / Social Security fraud / Medicare fraud / illegal entry more than once ) has plenty of reason to vote for a politician who says he will make it possible for him to stay forever === YOU DID NOT DISPROVE THAT.
> 
> All you did was vomit up ILLEGAL LOVER PROPAGANDA.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The above points were the point of my post -- if you wish to dispute those facts -- I welcome you to try to prove me wrong ... but don't come back puking up a bunch of propaganda without first DISPROVING MY FACTS.
> *===================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And nobody cheats on their taxes. It says right on that GAWDDAM TAX FORM THAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND CERTIFYING ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
> So whats your problem with taxes, everyone pays exactly what they are supposed to. THEY SIGN AND SAY ITS ACCURATE
> Frikken helmet wearing short bus riding retard. Must have been lead on those bus windows, you evidently ingested it somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good Bubba, YOU agree they CAN AND DO ASK IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN. Thanks for agreeing with me, tell the dumbass about it though Bubs
> 
> 
> AGAIN, GOP's voter restriction AKA voter ID laws, are  a solution when there ISN'T a problem!
Click to expand...

You really are not very bright are you butt chunk.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
Click to expand...


You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US. 

When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!" 

Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
Click to expand...


Gawd YOU are willfully ignorant NEVER said they paid INCOME TAX RATES BUT THEIR TAX BURDEN IS INCLUDED IN THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES PAID DUMMY! 

Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?


he nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. *"Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"*

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
Click to expand...


Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL

*Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*

*Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work*

*When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.*



*Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies







Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies








Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies






Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies






Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies






Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies






Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies
Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)








Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.

This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.


The Failure of Supply-Side Economics






*


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
Click to expand...



Listen DUMBSHIT, AGI IS AFTER DEDUCTING OPERATING COSTS AND EXPENSES. Grow a fukkn brain


Yes, Ayn Rand over Jesus's teachings in right wing 'Christianity" lol


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
> You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form
> 
> This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> And now you're on the ignore list.
> 
> *==================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, YOU LIED Bubs
> 
> 
> *IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!*
> 
> *Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?
> 
> GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> * Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.
> 
> "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP War on Voting*
> 
> 
> *In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting *
> 
> The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> *Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting*
> 
> You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself* disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.*
> 
> It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
> 
> 
> Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!
> 
> ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And nobody cheats on their taxes. It says right on that GAWDDAM TAX FORM THAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND CERTIFYING ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
> So whats your problem with taxes, everyone pays exactly what they are supposed to. THEY SIGN AND SAY ITS ACCURATE
> Frikken helmet wearing short bus riding retard. Must have been lead on those bus windows, you evidently ingested it somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good Bubba, YOU agree they CAN AND DO ASK IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN. Thanks for agreeing with me, tell the dumbass about it though Bubs
> 
> 
> AGAIN, GOP's voter restriction AKA voter ID laws, are  a solution when there ISN'T a problem!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are not very bright are you butt chunk.
Click to expand...


Your projection noted Bubs


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?



I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for *eliminating* capital gains taxation.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for *eliminating* capital gains taxation.
Click to expand...


Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!



FLASHBACK: _Reagan Raised Capital Gains_ Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time


FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL
> 
> *Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
> 
> *Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work*
> 
> *When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies*
> *Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> 
> *Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.*
> 
> *This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.*
> 
> *The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
Click to expand...


What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT. 

It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for *eliminating* capital gains taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!
> 
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK: _Reagan Raised Capital Gains_ Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time
Click to expand...


*thinkprogress.org?* ...REALLY?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL
> 
> *Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
> 
> *Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work*
> 
> *When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies*
> *Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> 
> *Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.*
> 
> *This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.*
> 
> *The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT.
> 
> It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Click to expand...




LOL, TO FUNNY BUBS, REAGAN CUTS TAX RATES, PROMISING EXPLOSIVE GROWTH, AND TAKES US INTO A RECESSION INSTEAD. WEIRD RIGHT?


Hint CLINTON was #1 in CONSECUTIVE quarters of growth

followed by JFK

THEN Ronnie 

ACCORDING TO RIGHT WING NEWSBUSTERS BUBBA? ANY OTHER FANTASIES YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?


AP Fantasy: U.S. Economic Growth Has Been 'Really Durable'


Hint Bush "took over" in 1989 Bubs AND didn't increase taxes UNTIL 1991 tax year, by 3% at the top rate? LOL



PLEASE tell me more of Ronnie's "economic policies" like ignoring the warnings from Mr Gray, the regulator of S&L that started in 1984 on Ronnie's "hands off approach'??? lol you know the economy poppy inherited???


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for *eliminating* capital gains taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!
> 
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK: _Reagan Raised Capital Gains_ Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time
> 
> 
> FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *thinkprogress.org?* ...REALLY?
Click to expand...


So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages!  How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol



Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.  

Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.


----------



## danielpalos

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.



But we don't tax wealth in America.


----------



## hadit

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
Click to expand...

We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

danielpalos said:


> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.


Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
 if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount. 
 Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
Click to expand...

income is a form of wealth.


----------



## danielpalos

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
Click to expand...

fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

danielpalos said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
Click to expand...

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
 even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
 what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.


----------



## danielpalos

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
> even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
> what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.
Click to expand...

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.


----------



## dcraelin

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.
> 
> To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.
> 
> Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.
> 
> Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.
> 
> Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol
> 
> Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.
> 
> When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"
> 
> Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL
> 
> *Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
> 
> *Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work*
> 
> *When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies*
> *Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> 
> *Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.*
> 
> *This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.*
> 
> *The Failure of Supply-Side Economics*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT.
> 
> It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Click to expand...


When the government borrows a lot of money, just as when individuals do.....things look rosy for a while.....until the bill comes due. .....that the economy grew during Reagan's years isnt surprising......but proves nothing....it was unsustainable growth,  kinda like what China has seen in the last few years.

now, Reagan's so called tax-cuts were more revenue neutral  than supply-sider, laughter curve aficionados like to admit. He did some good things in stopping up loopholes like excessive use of tax-exempt bonds. That is one thing we need to do again, as it was undone by Bush.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

danielpalos said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
> even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
> what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.
Click to expand...

Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.


----------



## danielpalos

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
> even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
> what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.
Click to expand...

who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?  

why not end our war on drugs.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

danielpalos said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
> even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
> what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?
> 
> why not end our war on drugs.
Click to expand...

if you think that someone spending welfare dollars is contributing to paying off debt, I would like to make a deal with you. You give me $100.00 and I will give you $6.00 back. I keep $94.00 and you are better off financially. We can make this trade anytime you are in need of money.


----------



## Arizona Willie

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

*====================*




Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> *Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill*.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Arizona Willie said:


> The problem lies in the definition of equal.
> 
> Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?
> 
> eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?
> 
> Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '
> 
> eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?
> 
> Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.
> 
> One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?
> 
> Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.
> 
> In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.
> 
> How do you define " equal "?
> 
> The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.
> 
> A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.
> 
> The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.
> 
> That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.
> 
> That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
> It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> *Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

both paying 10% is fair.
 It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
 ??% on each dollar. 
 by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
Click to expand...



That SMALL sliver at the top paying estate taxes  would disagree Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.
> 
> Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.
Click to expand...



GOP Senate Bubs, weird though how the top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years of Ronnie THEN increasing capital gains taxes to the same as EARNED income 28% the last 2 years, seems like there can be ZERO correlation with how tax rates effect the economy right Bubs? 

I mean in right wing world view, how the fuk could that commie Reagan have had a successful economy? 

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE show me Ronnie "increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% *temporarily"*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> fair is a _social_ concept not a _capital_ concept.  cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
> even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
> what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?
> 
> why not end our war on drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you think that someone spending welfare dollars is contributing to paying off debt, I would like to make a deal with you. You give me $100.00 and I will give you $6.00 back. I keep $94.00 and you are better off financially. We can make this trade anytime you are in need of money.
Click to expand...


Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?

*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*
*
Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work. * A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that _more than 90 percent _of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.



...The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.  

*Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds.* Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits. 

*Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities




*




*



*



*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem lies in the definition of equal.
> 
> Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?
> 
> eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?
> 
> Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '
> 
> eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?
> 
> Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.
> 
> One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?
> 
> Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.
> 
> In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.
> 
> How do you define " equal "?
> 
> The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.
> 
> A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.
> 
> The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.
> 
> That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.
> 
> That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
> It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> *Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both paying 10% is fair.
> It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
> ??% on each dollar.
> by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.
Click to expand...




"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, *in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*."  Adam Smith


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem lies in the definition of equal.
> 
> Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?
> 
> eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?
> 
> Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '
> 
> eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?
> 
> Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.
> 
> One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?
> 
> Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.
> 
> In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.
> 
> How do you define " equal "?
> 
> The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.
> 
> A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.
> 
> The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.
> 
> That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.
> 
> That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
> It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> *Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both paying 10% is fair.
> It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
> ??% on each dollar.
> by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, *in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*."  Adam Smith
Click to expand...

Do you know what in proportion means?
 you just shot your argument against a flat tax in the foot.
 dumb ass.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem lies in the definition of equal.
> 
> Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?
> 
> eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?
> 
> Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '
> 
> eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?
> 
> Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.
> 
> One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?
> 
> Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.
> 
> In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.
> 
> How do you define " equal "?
> 
> The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.
> 
> A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.
> 
> The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.
> 
> That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.
> 
> That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
> It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.
> 
> *====================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
> if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
> *Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both paying 10% is fair.
> It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
> ??% on each dollar.
> by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, *in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*."  Adam Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what in proportion means?
> you just shot your argument against a flat tax in the foot.
> dumb ass.
Click to expand...




"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, *as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities*; that is, in* proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state*. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all *obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate*." -  Adam Smith



More from Wealth of Nations Bubs:


"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . *It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion*."


"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and *not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people*, that ought ever to be taxed."

"The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly, at least, to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage, too much, this attention and good management. *Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign*, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owner so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. *Nothing can be more reasonable, than that a fund, which owes its existence to the good government of the state, should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government*."


lol


----------



## hadit

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?


----------



## Dad2three




----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
Click to expand...

So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?


----------



## boedicca

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
Click to expand...



Thieves usually want 100% of whatever the victim has.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
Click to expand...



Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?


----------



## Dad2three

boedicca said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thieves usually want 100% of whatever the victim has.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


Sociopaths "believe in" myths and fairy tales too. Just saying


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
Click to expand...

why are you saying the top 1% of us.
 say it like you really mean it, those that make more than you do should pay 70 to 100% so you can get a free ride.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why are you saying the top 1% of us.
> say it like you really mean it, those that make more than you do should pay 70 to 100% so you can get a free ride.
Click to expand...



Got it, AS the tax burden has shifted away from the "job creators" and income inequality has become, like it was pre HIGH PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, a more just and equal society post 1932-1980

How could someone making $8 million a year live on $3 million right Bubs? 


NOTICE ANYTHING BUBS:


----------



## Boss

hadit said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. 

Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true. 

Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> income is a form of wealth.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's not.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That SMALL sliver at the top paying estate taxes  would disagree Bubs
Click to expand...


LMAOoo... Probably not... since they are DEAD! 

Estate taxes are levied on the net value of the estate of a deceased person before distribution to the heirs.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.
> 
> Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate Bubs, weird though how the top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years of Ronnie THEN increasing capital gains taxes to the same as EARNED income 28% the last 2 years, seems like there can be ZERO correlation with how tax rates effect the economy right Bubs?
> 
> I mean in right wing world view, how the fuk could that commie Reagan have had a successful economy?
> 
> PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE show me Ronnie "increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% *temporarily"*
Click to expand...


Oh, sorry... I forget that I am talking to an imbecile who has to have every little detail explained to him on a kindergarten level.  Reagan's original proposal in 1985 called for a cut in capital gains tax. The eventual increase was the result of an amendment added to gain Democrat votes and get the bill passed. Reagan also eliminated long term capital gains for corporations. He also added an "alternative tax" which somewhat mitigated the modest increase in capital gains tax. 

Let's also remember, he reduced capital gains tax from 25% to 20% in 1981. When he originally unveiled his 1985 tax plan, he called for capital gains to be cut to 17.5%.  He said, _"To marshal more venture capital for new industries–the kind of efforts that begin with a couple of partners setting out to create and develop a new product–we intend to lower the maximum capital-gains tax rate to 17-1/2 percent."_ 

So... The "Reagan tax plan" was always to reduce capital gains taxes. It's when his plan hit the Senate that liberal republican Bob Packwood negotiated a deal to get the tax cuts Reagan wanted on top marginal income in exchange for raising the capital gains taxes to the same as "regular income" ...but Reagan wasn't happy about it. He reluctantly signed the bill in order to get the huge reduction in top marginal rates, but he spent the remainder of his presidency calling for reduction or elimination of capital gains taxes and estate tax. 

When I said "temporarily" it wasn't meant to imply the tax law had some built in time bomb... I meant from a philosophical standpoint. Reagan *NEVER* wanted to increase capital gains tax.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
Click to expand...


"Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. "

YOU AND  YOUR NUTTY FUKKN "THEORIES" BUBBA, GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> income is a form of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not.
Click to expand...



Tell that to Paulson who gamed the Banksters  to "EARN" $4.7+ BILLION IN ONE YEAR. That's called INCOME AND WEALTH!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That SMALL sliver at the top paying estate taxes  would disagree Bubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAOoo... Probably not... since they are DEAD!
> 
> Estate taxes are levied on the net value of the estate of a deceased person before distribution to the heirs.
Click to expand...


Weird, so estates taxes DON'T touch the wealthy? REALLY Bubba? Hint, yes it's the ESTATES of the dead, NOT those inheriting it... THAT IS A TAX ON WEALTH DUMMY!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.
> 
> Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate Bubs, weird though how the top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years of Ronnie THEN increasing capital gains taxes to the same as EARNED income 28% the last 2 years, seems like there can be ZERO correlation with how tax rates effect the economy right Bubs?
> 
> I mean in right wing world view, how the fuk could that commie Reagan have had a successful economy?
> 
> PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE show me Ronnie "increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% *temporarily"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry... I forget that I am talking to an imbecile who has to have every little detail explained to him on a kindergarten level.  Reagan's original proposal in 1985 called for a cut in capital gains tax. The eventual increase was the result of an amendment added to gain Democrat votes and get the bill passed. Reagan also eliminated long term capital gains for corporations. He also added an "alternative tax" which somewhat mitigated the modest increase in capital gains tax.
> 
> Let's also remember, he reduced capital gains tax from 25% to 20% in 1981. When he originally unveiled his 1985 tax plan, he called for capital gains to be cut to 17.5%.  He said, _"To marshal more venture capital for new industries–the kind of efforts that begin with a couple of partners setting out to create and develop a new product–we intend to lower the maximum capital-gains tax rate to 17-1/2 percent."_
> 
> So... The "Reagan tax plan" was always to reduce capital gains taxes. It's when his plan hit the Senate that liberal republican Bob Packwood negotiated a deal to get the tax cuts Reagan wanted on top marginal income in exchange for raising the capital gains taxes to the same as "regular income" ...but Reagan wasn't happy about it. He reluctantly signed the bill in order to get the huge reduction in top marginal rates, but he spent the remainder of his presidency calling for reduction or elimination of capital gains taxes and estate tax.
> 
> When I said "temporarily" it wasn't meant to imply the tax law had some built in time bomb... I meant from a philosophical standpoint. Reagan *NEVER* wanted to increase capital gains tax.
Click to expand...





Says the Klown who didn't understand WHY Ronnie agreed to increasing cap gains to the same rates as labor? Weird Bubba


I get Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to increasing cap gains taxes. But did


Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to arming terrorists, BUT DID

Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to running from terrorists, BUT DID

Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to going against the US Constitutions in Iran/Contra, BUT DID

Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to abortions, but NEVER actually made it a priority as Prez AND signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation as Guv of Cali

See how it works Bubba, no matter what you"philosophically" are pushing, your actions  count!!!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. "
> 
> YOU AND  YOUR NUTTY FUKKN "THEORIES" BUBBA, GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN!
Click to expand...


No "theory" about this... We do not tax wealth in the United States. *Period!*  We tax estates when someone dies... we tax property someone owns... we apply a luxury tax to what someone purchases... we tax dividends and earned income... but we simply do not tax *wealth*.


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. "
> 
> YOU AND  YOUR NUTTY FUKKN "THEORIES" BUBBA, GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "theory" about this... We do not tax wealth in the United States. *Period!*  We tax estates when someone dies... we tax property someone owns... we apply a luxury tax to what someone purchases... we tax dividends and earned income... but we simply do not tax *wealth*.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we should.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Says the Klown who didn't understand WHY Ronnie agreed to increasing cap gains to the same rates as labor? Weird Bubba
> 
> 
> I get Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to increasing cap gains taxes. But did
> 
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to arming terrorists, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to running from terrorists, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to going against the US Constitutions in Iran/Contra, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to abortions, but NEVER actually made it a priority as Prez AND signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation as Guv of Cali
> 
> See how it works Bubba, no matter what you"philosophically" are pushing, your actions count!!!



Again, his actions were that he reduced capital gains taxes from 25% to 20% in 1981. His actions were to propose reducing them to 17.5% in 1985. His actions were that he agreed to raise them to 28% in order to get the top marginal rates reduced from 50% to 28% in 1986. His actions were to continue vocally calling for reduction or elimination of capital gains and estate taxes. Nowhere in his political career did he ever advocate raising capital gains taxes.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> 
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. "
> 
> YOU AND  YOUR NUTTY FUKKN "THEORIES" BUBBA, GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "theory" about this... We do not tax wealth in the United States. *Period!*  We tax estates when someone dies... we tax property someone owns... we apply a luxury tax to what someone purchases... we tax dividends and earned income... but we simply do not tax *wealth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like we should.
Click to expand...


Then you should be supporting Donald Trump because he is the only candidate who has proposed we do this. I personally believe you CAN'T do this because the Constitution doesn't allow it.  But hey... give 'er a go!  You have a liberal SCOTUS, they can simply rewrite the Constitution to make it happen!


----------



## dblack

The main thing with taxes, and government in general, is to fuck the other guy.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
Click to expand...

dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't tax wealth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do, just not at the federal level.  I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car.  The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.
> 
> Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth!  Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.
> 
> Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax. "
> 
> YOU AND  YOUR NUTTY FUKKN "THEORIES" BUBBA, GROW UP AND GROW A BRAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "theory" about this... We do not tax wealth in the United States. *Period!*  We tax estates when someone dies... we tax property someone owns... we apply a luxury tax to what someone purchases... we tax dividends and earned income... but we simply do not tax *wealth*.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubba, sure


----------



## dblack

The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Klown who didn't understand WHY Ronnie agreed to increasing cap gains to the same rates as labor? Weird Bubba
> 
> 
> I get Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to increasing cap gains taxes. But did
> 
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to arming terrorists, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to running from terrorists, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to going against the US Constitutions in Iran/Contra, BUT DID
> 
> Ronnie "philosophically' was opposed to abortions, but NEVER actually made it a priority as Prez AND signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation as Guv of Cali
> 
> See how it works Bubba, no matter what you"philosophically" are pushing, your actions count!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, his actions were that he reduced capital gains taxes from 25% to 20% in 1981. His actions were to propose reducing them to 17.5% in 1985. His actions were that he agreed to raise them to 28% in order to get the top marginal rates reduced from 50% to 28% in 1986. His actions were to continue vocally calling for reduction or elimination of capital gains and estate taxes. Nowhere in his political career did he ever advocate raising capital gains taxes.
Click to expand...



Actually Ronnie decreased Cap gains from 28% to 20% in 1981 THEN decided to put it back up to 28% in 1986. YOU KNOW WHAT ACTIONS MEAN RIGHT BUBBA?




The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. *"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,"* he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response*. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"*

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. *The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.*

Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. *But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. *


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Rolling Stone


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you confusing revenue with income again?



Both are sums of total. Revenue has more and better deductions than income.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> The main thing with taxes, and government in general, is to fuck the other guy.



You could try Somalia? How about the rights new found love with Honduras?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.

Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.

The workers , however............


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.




*Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............



Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol







AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Dad2three said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
Click to expand...


NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing with taxes, and government in general, is to fuck the other guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could try Somalia? How about the rights new found love with Honduras?
Click to expand...


You must stroke it to vids of Somalia squalor or something. Whatever gets your rocks off, I guess.


----------



## OnePercenter

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............



Except NOBODY pays tax rates. Not even you.


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
Click to expand...


Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?


----------



## Dad2three

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...


You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%


How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing with taxes, and government in general, is to fuck the other guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could try Somalia? How about the rights new found love with Honduras?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must stroke it to vids of Somalia squalor or something. Whatever gets your rocks off, I guess.
Click to expand...



Says the Randian fetishists


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing with taxes, and government in general, is to fuck the other guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could try Somalia? How about the rights new found love with Honduras?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must stroke it to vids of Somalia squalor or something. Whatever gets your rocks off, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Randian fetishists
Click to expand...


Try again. You don't really get it, do you?


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?
Click to expand...



Who knew your false premise on the left "hating" wealth would go over your head? Oh wait, I bet it didn't, just ANOTHER right wing denier!


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who knew your false premise on the left "hating" wealth would go over your head? Oh wait, I bet it didn't, just ANOTHER right wing denier!
Click to expand...


Your left/right delusion has you trapped.


----------



## danielpalos

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Tax rates must meet the exigency or they are useless in case of any need of popular support. 

In any case, wartime public policies should require wartime tax rates or there should be no delegation of wartime social Powers.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who knew your false premise on the left "hating" wealth would go over your head? Oh wait, I bet it didn't, just ANOTHER right wing denier!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your left/right delusion has you trapped.
Click to expand...


Right Bubba, CONservative/Libertarian policy NEVER is on the correct side of US history

PLEASE give me one POLICY EVER?


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple solution, for those of you who are annoyed by people amassing wealth, is to stop giving them your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who knew your false premise on the left "hating" wealth would go over your head? Oh wait, I bet it didn't, just ANOTHER right wing denier!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your left/right delusion has you trapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, CONservative/Libertarian policy NEVER is on the correct side of US history
> 
> PLEASE give me one POLICY EVER?
Click to expand...


Your left/right delusion has you trapped.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Without false premises,* distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... are you just mashing keys randomly, or do you you mean something with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who knew your false premise on the left "hating" wealth would go over your head? Oh wait, I bet it didn't, just ANOTHER right wing denier!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your left/right delusion has you trapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right Bubba, CONservative/Libertarian policy NEVER is on the correct side of US history
> 
> PLEASE give me one POLICY EVER?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your left/right delusion has you trapped.
Click to expand...


As usual, NOTHING from you. Shocking


----------



## danielpalos

yes, capitalists should pay what they are worth under any form of capitalism; that is why it is called capitalism and not socialism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%
> 
> 
> How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
Click to expand...


*You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007?
*
He didn't game the system, comrade.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%
> 
> 
> How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007?
> *
> He didn't game the system, comrade.
Click to expand...

not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
 I think that is far more than his fair share.
 Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
 what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money. 
 isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
Click to expand...

Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
Click to expand...



Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs

AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs? 


*AGI ($ millions)*

Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Papageorgio

Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived. 

The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%
> 
> 
> How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007?
> *
> He didn't game the system, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
> I think that is far more than his fair share.
> Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
> what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money.
> isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.
Click to expand...



_John Paulson_ should be rotting in prison

*John Paulson and the Greatest Pump and Short Fraud Ever*

By now, everybody knows that the market for collateralized debt obligations was riddled with fraud in the lead-up to the financial crisis. What is less known is the fact that hedge fund managers helped create and inflate the market for these toxic securities specifically so that they could bet against them and profit from the inevitable collapse.

An example of a particularly sordid scheme, orchestrated by hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, was discovered some time ago by David Fiderer, a blogger for the Huffington Post. The information in Fiderer’s blog is rather incriminating, and, of course, the mainstream media is not on the case, so I think it bears repeating.

In a close reading of Wall Street Journal Gregory Zuckerman’s book, “The Greatest Trade Ever”, an otherwise starry-eyed account of Paulson’s bets against the mortgage market, Fiderer discovered this nugget:

“Paulson and [partner Paolo Pellegrini] were eager to find ways to expand their wager against risky mortgages. Accumulating it in the market sometimes proved to be a slow process. So they made appointments with bankers at Bear Stearns, Deutsche Bank (NYSEB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), and other banks to ask if they would create CDOs that Paulson & Co. could essentially bet against.”

As Fiderer explains, *Paulson asked the banks to create those CDOs “so that they could be sold to some suckers at close to par. That way, Paulson’s hedge fund could approach some other sucker who would sell an insurance policy, or credit default swap, on the newly minted CDOs. Bear, Deutsche and Goldman knew perfectly well what Paulson’s motivation was. He made no secret of his belief that the CDOs subordinate claims on the mortgage collateral were close to worthless. By the time others have figured out the fatal flaws in these securities which had been ignored by the rating agencies, Paulson could collect up to $5 billion.*

“*Paulson not only initiated these transactions, he also specified the terms he wanted, identifying which mortgages would be stuffed into the CDOs, and how the CDOs should be structured. Within the overall framework set by Paulson’s team, banks and investors were allowed to do some minor tweaking.”*

It is not clear which banks ultimately participated in Paulson’s scam, but Fiderer quotes Bear Stearns trader Scott Eichel as saying that his bank refused. “*It didn’t pass the ethics standards;” *Eichel said, “it was a reputation issue and it didn’t pass our moral compass. *We didn’t think we could sell deals that someone was shorting on the other side.”* Bear Stearns’ moral compass was usually pointed towards the darker regions, but perhaps this is why Paulson subsequently became one of the more eager short sellers of Bear Stearns’ stock.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Papageorgio said:


> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!



The Republicans held the Senate from 1981-1987.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!



Weird, GOP Senate for 6 years under Ronnie? AND Dems were working with the guy ELECTED to run Gov't? Unlike todays GOP ()or even the GOP under BJ Bill)


Don't understand how policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised'


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%
> 
> 
> How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007?
> *
> He didn't game the system, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
> I think that is far more than his fair share.
> Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
> what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money.
> isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _John Paulson_ should be rotting in prison
> 
> *John Paulson and the Greatest Pump and Short Fraud Ever*
> 
> By now, everybody knows that the market for collateralized debt obligations was riddled with fraud in the lead-up to the financial crisis. What is less known is the fact that hedge fund managers helped create and inflate the market for these toxic securities specifically so that they could bet against them and profit from the inevitable collapse.
> 
> An example of a particularly sordid scheme, orchestrated by hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, was discovered some time ago by David Fiderer, a blogger for the Huffington Post. The information in Fiderer’s blog is rather incriminating, and, of course, the mainstream media is not on the case, so I think it bears repeating.
> 
> In a close reading of Wall Street Journal Gregory Zuckerman’s book, “The Greatest Trade Ever”, an otherwise starry-eyed account of Paulson’s bets against the mortgage market, Fiderer discovered this nugget:
> 
> “Paulson and [partner Paolo Pellegrini] were eager to find ways to expand their wager against risky mortgages. Accumulating it in the market sometimes proved to be a slow process. So they made appointments with bankers at Bear Stearns, Deutsche Bank (NYSEB), Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), and other banks to ask if they would create CDOs that Paulson & Co. could essentially bet against.”
> 
> As Fiderer explains, *Paulson asked the banks to create those CDOs “so that they could be sold to some suckers at close to par. That way, Paulson’s hedge fund could approach some other sucker who would sell an insurance policy, or credit default swap, on the newly minted CDOs. Bear, Deutsche and Goldman knew perfectly well what Paulson’s motivation was. He made no secret of his belief that the CDOs subordinate claims on the mortgage collateral were close to worthless. By the time others have figured out the fatal flaws in these securities which had been ignored by the rating agencies, Paulson could collect up to $5 billion.*
> 
> “*Paulson not only initiated these transactions, he also specified the terms he wanted, identifying which mortgages would be stuffed into the CDOs, and how the CDOs should be structured. Within the overall framework set by Paulson’s team, banks and investors were allowed to do some minor tweaking.”*
> 
> It is not clear which banks ultimately participated in Paulson’s scam, but Fiderer quotes Bear Stearns trader Scott Eichel as saying that his bank refused. “*It didn’t pass the ethics standards;” *Eichel said, “it was a reputation issue and it didn’t pass our moral compass. *We didn’t think we could sell deals that someone was shorting on the other side.”* Bear Stearns’ moral compass was usually pointed towards the darker regions, but perhaps this is why Paulson subsequently became one of the more eager short sellers of Bear Stearns’ stock.
Click to expand...


_*“it was a reputation issue and it didn’t pass our moral compass. We didn’t think we could sell deals that someone was shorting on the other side.”*_

Ummm, when you create a synthetic security, someone must be short the security your client buys.


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans held the Senate from 1981-1987.
Click to expand...


My bad, Reagan is just so powerful! The Democrats are powerless to stop him, even though he is dead.


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
> *I think that is far more than his fair share.*
> Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
> what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money.
> isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.



I can guarantee that he paid less tax/percentage of income than you did.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans held the Senate from 1981-1987.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, Reagan is just so powerful! The Democrats are powerless to stop him, even though he is dead.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maryland Patriot

OnePercenter said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
> *I think that is far more than his fair share.*
> Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
> what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money.
> isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can guarantee that he paid less tax/percentage of income than you did.
Click to expand...

percentage? most likely, but I did get mine pretty low.
 however, I bet he still paid more than I made in my life so far. I dont feel cheated by him or his tax paid.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> not only did he not game the system, he still paid more than most people will make in a lifetime.
> *I think that is far more than his fair share.*
> Now, back to the question that nobody can answer.
> what is it that gives anyone the right to someone else s money.
> isn't that really what the left is worried about, what they want? they want someones earned income redistributed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can guarantee that he paid less tax/percentage of income than you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> percentage? most likely, but I did get mine pretty low.
> however, I bet he still paid more than I made in my life so far. I dont feel cheated by him or his tax paid.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but like the majority of  FARRR right wingers, you are  a sociopath!


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!



I have one question which is impossible for you to answer:

How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans held the Senate from 1981-1987.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, Reagan is just so powerful! The Democrats are powerless to stop him, even though he is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Poor helpless Democrats, powerless.


----------



## OnePercenter

Maryland Patriot said:


> percentage? most likely, but I did get mine pretty low.
> *however, I bet he still paid more than I made in my life so far.* I dont feel cheated by him or his tax paid.



Because 1% of one million is greater than 1% of fifty-thousand.


----------



## Papageorgio

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan must have been the most powerful man to have ever lived.
> 
> The guy served only eight years in office, I don't think the GOP held majority in either the House or Senate however this guy got every policy he ever wanted passed and after 27 years not one Democrat, even when they held the House and Senate, can't undo a damn thing he did to ruin the country. Are Democrats this clueless or what? Even under Obama the rich are getting richer! Neither he nor Clinton are capable of changing the direction. Reagan was superhuman!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have one question which is impossible for you to answer:
> 
> How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?
Click to expand...


Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!



A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.  

I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it. 

I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!



OK smartass, answer the question;

How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we had EFFECTIVE rates 3 times today's rates 1932-1980, did they stop creating wealth? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING THE RIGHT SUCKS OFF THE PLUTOCRAT CLASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE should pay a 80% tax rate, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007? Oh wait, he didn't pay 80%, it was 15%
> 
> 
> How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You mean like when John Paulson gamed the system and "made" $4.7 billion in 2007?
> *
> He didn't game the system, comrade.
Click to expand...


In the Liberal Dictionary "gaming the system" means following the rules.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
Click to expand...


You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?


----------



## Papageorgio

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
Click to expand...


Certificate applies to the NYFD sorry!

The rest of your rant is BS! You are talking out your ass once again.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
Click to expand...


A "Certificate of Fitness" is issued by the fire department and says your building is in compliance with fire safety codes.  It has nothing to do with business licenses, worker status or anything else that bears no relation to fire safety.

You're obviously a lying piece of shit.


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...

You are proof liberals are stupid 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
Click to expand...

did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
Click to expand...

You mean the company that is now going to file for bankruptcy? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
Click to expand...


Did you miss the follow up?
It didn't work out so well.


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the company that is now going to file for bankruptcy?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

nope; the ceo became less capitalist and took a pay cut.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
Click to expand...

because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
Click to expand...


Because it was a stupid idea.


----------



## dcraelin

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Sure , raise the tax rate to 90% then you know what those 1% will do? Why they will stop earning of course.
> 
> Think the Waltons need to keep Wal Mart open to eat? Of course not, they could close every store in the company tomorrow and it wouldn't affect them at all.
> 
> The workers , however............



first of all, I doubt if they would close them out of spite.  second if they did, someone would buy it up on the cheap and open them right back up again, or gladly soak up the business that was going there. 

keep hearing people say no one should pay a 80%, 90% rate.  THAT is a MARGINAL rate, the rich pay no more than anyone else on their first dollars.....someone making $40000 and a millionaire pay the same rate on that first $40000 (depending slightly on standard deductions etc.)


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it.  Always insist that they quantify it.  What exactly is a "fair share"?  Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.

but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
Click to expand...


Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
Click to expand...


So you believe it is a good decision? Why?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
Click to expand...

structural unemployment happens; why wouldn't the remaining and _loyal_ labor not "work up to their income"?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe it is a good decision? Why?
Click to expand...

i am not claiming any subjective value of morals, one way or the other.  

it is merely anecdotal evidence that supports the contention of some on the left, that there is a lot of room to work with regarding more efficient income distribution via public policy schemes.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> structural unemployment happens; why wouldn't the remaining and _loyal_ labor not "work up to their income"?
Click to expand...


Work up to their income? Not sure what that means.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the follow up?
> It didn't work out so well.
> 
> 
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe it is a good decision? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming any subjective value of morals, one way or the other.
> 
> it is merely anecdotal evidence that supports the contention of some on the left, that there is a lot of room to work with regarding more efficient income distribution via public policy schemes.
Click to expand...


But it is failing, it isn't a good idea if it fails.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> structural unemployment happens; why wouldn't the remaining and _loyal_ labor not "work up to their income"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work up to their income? Not sure what that means.
Click to expand...

let's say it should be analogous to working "efficiently" for that "efficiency" wage.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe it is a good decision? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming any subjective value of morals, one way or the other.
> 
> it is merely anecdotal evidence that supports the contention of some on the left, that there is a lot of room to work with regarding more efficient income distribution via public policy schemes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it is failing, it isn't a good idea if it fails.
Click to expand...

why did senior management, sign off on it to begin with, if it had no chance of success?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
Click to expand...


The issue is one percenter claims to pay his employees twice the wages of his competitors, charges his customers less than his competitors and has a wider profit margin than his competitors. There are fixed costs in every business. So, if you are paying employees more, charging customers less. His profit margin can't be twice the average. He can't explain it , never has. His story is bogus.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe it is a good decision? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming any subjective value of morals, one way or the other.
> 
> it is merely anecdotal evidence that supports the contention of some on the left, that there is a lot of room to work with regarding more efficient income distribution via public policy schemes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it is failing, it isn't a good idea if it fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why did senior management, sign off on it to begin with, if it had no chance of success?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't know. I wasn't there.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> structural unemployment happens; why wouldn't the remaining and _loyal_ labor not "work up to their income"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work up to their income? Not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's say it should be analogous to working "efficiently" for that "efficiency" wage.
Click to expand...


Still doesn't make sense. Wages are wages, how does one work up to wages? You get what you get.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> structural unemployment happens; why wouldn't the remaining and _loyal_ labor not "work up to their income"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work up to their income? Not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's say it should be analogous to working "efficiently" for that "efficiency" wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't make sense. Wages are wages, how does one work up to wages? You get what you get.
Click to expand...

It involves the concept of efficiency wages in much the same manner as a tip helps ensure promptness in any given transaction.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.



They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world. 



danielpalos said:


> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?



I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail. 

The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company

_Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.

For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.

Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail.
> 
> The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company
> 
> _Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.
> 
> For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.
> 
> Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._
Click to expand...

How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail.
> 
> The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company
> 
> _Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.
> 
> For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.
> 
> Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
Click to expand...


High turnover was very expensive, hiking salaries cut turnover and boosted productivity.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?



I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail. 

Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *


----------



## Dad2three

dcraelin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
Click to expand...


Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes

Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth



What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family

But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


*What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
*
It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
Click to expand...

Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the story where is sorry he did that, it has created lots of issues within the company and some of his best people have left. You the company where the owner still owes his brother some money and isn't able to pay up. The company where employees are now not motivated to work harder. The company where the people with a low skill set are not living up to expectations? That company?
Click to expand...


Yes you set up the right wing memes, devoid of honesty or the ENTIRE story. Shocking how the right HATES that there might be a way to have a fairer economy right Bubs?

Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage


----------



## David_42

Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...

did you read the link you supplied? It really does not back up what you are trying to pretend is reality.
 "In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent)."

 On the bright side, I left my job on Friday to take a year off to complete my next degree. (continuing education is how I earn more money, not by blackmailing a business owner) and, even with the reduction in income, I still get to stay in the 5% bracket. I think I will buy a new boat, gives me a mortgage deduction that almost will have those other taxpayers making the monthly payment.


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the business model didn't hold or due to "class envy"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why was it stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe it is a good decision? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming any subjective value of morals, one way or the other.
> 
> it is merely anecdotal evidence that supports the contention of some on the left, that there is a lot of room to work with regarding more efficient income distribution via public policy schemes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it is failing, it isn't a good idea if it fails.
Click to expand...



Failing? Oh right ANYTHING not small enough to fit on a bumper sticker for CONserevatives is bound to "fail" grow a fukkn brain dummy

Like ALL policies in a workplace, there are adjustments, and yes a TWO  moronic right wingers left. AND? 120+ EMPLOYEES! lol'

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
Click to expand...

what failure; the firm is still operational under the same management, unlike Hostess.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
Click to expand...

your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
 Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
 Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.


----------



## David_42

Maryland Patriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
Click to expand...

Clinton failed, Obama has tried but republicans are set on never changing or raising taxes.. It worked???? LOOOOOOOL. Explains the growing income inequality, stagnant wages..


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail.
> 
> The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company
> 
> _Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.
> 
> For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.
> 
> Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._
Click to expand...


lol, Without FALSE PREMISE, distortions and LIES what would you right wingers EVER have Bubs?


*Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*


The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. *So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it*…*Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.*

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High


*GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%*

Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of *12.6%* in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The federal corporate tax rate stands at *35%*, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account



WEIRD HOW SOOOOOOO many right wingers came out and started attacking a guy for wanting to pay his employees a MIN LIVING WAGE. No he's not failing, AND it takes a lil bit more than the usual right wing BS and bumper sticker mentality to get threw the ACTUAL story versus cherry picked and distorted tales from the right wing echo chamber Bubs

When other entrepreneurs suggested stock options or profit-sharing would have been a better approach, he said that’s the way capitalism works: Everyone tries to invent the best mousetrap. “I came up with the best solution I could.”

*The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.*



* That new business won’t start paying off for 12 to 18 months, however...



*

...."*For now, Price has undoubtedly made an immediate difference in the lives of many of his employees.* José Garcia, 30, who supervises an equipment team, was able to afford to move into the city and replace the worn tires on his car. Ortiz, who was briefly homeless as a child, can now visit her family in Burlington. Vt. Cody Boorman, 22, who handles operations out of his Eastern Washington home, said he and his wife finally felt financially secure enough to start a family.

There have been other ripples. Mario Zahariev, who runs Pop’s Pizza & Pasta, switched to Gravity after seeing Price on the news. When he learned his monthly processing fees *would drop to $900 from $1,700,* Zahariev decided: “*I was not going to keep the difference for myself.” He used the savings to raise the salaries of his eight employees.*


GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
Click to expand...


*Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about.*

Millions of illegals haven't greatly increased the black unemployment rate? Seriously?
*
Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.*

Let's import more poor people, that'll help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy



Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
Expensive too.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
Click to expand...



ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75%  BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"

Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you read the link you supplied? It really does not back up what you are trying to pretend is reality.
> "In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent)."
> 
> On the bright side, I left my job on Friday to take a year off to complete my next degree. (continuing education is how I earn more money, not by blackmailing a business owner) and, even with the reduction in income, I still get to stay in the 5% bracket. I think I will buy a new boat, gives me a mortgage deduction that almost will have those other taxpayers making the monthly payment.
Click to expand...



So instead of ACTUALLY taking ANY of my points and TRYING to refute them you bring up BS that is cherry picked to lead to the conclusion that taxes are to much on the top 1% who have seen their share of income more than triple the past thirty five years AS the tax burden (OVERALL TAX BURDEN, NOT JUST INCOME TAXES) HAS DIPPED BY NEARLY 40% ON THAT SHARE OF INCOME??? lol


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
> Expensive too.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you'll need to back up your claim.
Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument
Show a correlation.


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about.*
> 
> Millions of illegals haven't greatly increased the black unemployment rate? Seriously?
> *
> Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.*
> 
> Let's import more poor people, that'll help.
Click to expand...

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. No correlation.
Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument


----------



## Maryland Patriot

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
> Expensive too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you'll need to back up your claim.
> Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument
> Show a correlation.
Click to expand...


Low-skilled illegals compete for jobs with low skilled Americans. Pretty clear.
As far as expensive, about $11000 per illegal kid per year for education in Illinois.
Add the costs of increased crime, increased police/prison expenses and emergency room expenses....just more spending we can't afford.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
Click to expand...



Weird you have ZERO honesty.

Yep, Clinton (with ONLY Dem support) lifted taxes from 17% of GDP to 20%+ of GDP via his 1993 tax policy that not ONE single GOPer voted for?

It took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% 

You morons NEVER accept that GOP obstruction stop Obama from implementing the Buffett tax (min 30% on $1,000,000+ incomes), or lowering Corp tax rates from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using new revenues to help with infrastructure.



Nope, just why didn't the Dems overwhelm the low informed GOPers?

HINT, 6 YEARS OF GOP/DUBYA POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT WHEN DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS, AND WHEN THE SECOND BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE CAME IN(BJ BILL #1) IN JAN 2009, THE ECONOMY WAS ON ANOTHER GOP CREATED CLIFF DUMMY!!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you have ZERO honesty.
> 
> Yep, Clinton (with ONLY Dem support) lifted taxes from 17% of GDP to 20%+ of GDP via his 1993 tax policy that not ONE single GOPer voted for?
> 
> It took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%
> 
> You morons NEVER accept that GOP obstruction stop Obama from implementing the Buffett tax (min 30% on $1,000,000+ incomes), or lowering Corp tax rates from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using new revenues to help with infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just why didn't the Dems overwhelm the low informed GOPers?
> 
> HINT, 6 YEARS OF GOP/DUBYA POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT WHEN DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS, AND WHEN THE SECOND BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE CAME IN(BJ BILL #1) IN JAN 2009, THE ECONOMY WAS ON ANOTHER GOP CREATED CLIFF DUMMY!!
Click to expand...

and when will you finally admit that the financial crisis during President Bush's administration was caused by Jimmy Carter and then set up for certain failure by Bill Clinton.
 liberals are idiots.


----------



## danielpalos

_There have been other ripples. Mario Zahariev, who runs Pop’s Pizza & Pasta, switched to Gravity after seeing Price on the news. When he learned his monthly processing fees would drop to $900 from $1,700, Zahariev decided: “I was not going to keep the difference for myself.” He used the savings to raise the salaries of his eight employees._


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)






As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*


*FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.

FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.

FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.


Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study




*Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf




*Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/si...rength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2


Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you have ZERO honesty.
> 
> Yep, Clinton (with ONLY Dem support) lifted taxes from 17% of GDP to 20%+ of GDP via his 1993 tax policy that not ONE single GOPer voted for?
> 
> It took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%
> 
> You morons NEVER accept that GOP obstruction stop Obama from implementing the Buffett tax (min 30% on $1,000,000+ incomes), or lowering Corp tax rates from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using new revenues to help with infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just why didn't the Dems overwhelm the low informed GOPers?
> 
> HINT, 6 YEARS OF GOP/DUBYA POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT WHEN DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS, AND WHEN THE SECOND BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE CAME IN(BJ BILL #1) IN JAN 2009, THE ECONOMY WAS ON ANOTHER GOP CREATED CLIFF DUMMY!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when will you finally admit that the financial crisis during President Bush's administration was caused by Jimmy Carter and then set up for certain failure by Bill Clinton.
> liberals are idiots.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, sure, Dubya's regulator failure was Carters fault. And I thought YOU were complaining the Dems could've fixed Reagan's trickle down? lol

Right wingers (especially you) are fukkn lying tools!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
Click to expand...

If you cant see the errors in what you posted you are a bigger idiot that I first suspected.
 get somebody to help you. Try one of the people without the helmet and pads running around your living space.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you have ZERO honesty.
> 
> Yep, Clinton (with ONLY Dem support) lifted taxes from 17% of GDP to 20%+ of GDP via his 1993 tax policy that not ONE single GOPer voted for?
> 
> It took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%
> 
> You morons NEVER accept that GOP obstruction stop Obama from implementing the Buffett tax (min 30% on $1,000,000+ incomes), or lowering Corp tax rates from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using new revenues to help with infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just why didn't the Dems overwhelm the low informed GOPers?
> 
> HINT, 6 YEARS OF GOP/DUBYA POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT WHEN DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS, AND WHEN THE SECOND BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE CAME IN(BJ BILL #1) IN JAN 2009, THE ECONOMY WAS ON ANOTHER GOP CREATED CLIFF DUMMY!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when will you finally admit that the financial crisis during President Bush's administration was caused by Jimmy Carter and then set up for certain failure by Bill Clinton.
> liberals are idiots.
Click to expand...




Yeah, I can see how this could be Carter/Clinton's fault


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family.
> *
> It's difficult to keep up when tens of millions of illegals are competing for low-skilled jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dipshit, the studies don't show illegal immigrants having a noticeable effect on the jobs you rant about. Trickle down voodoo has failed us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your guy Clinton had 8 years to correct that, why didn't he? because it worked to a point that his economy was good. Why didn't the democrat congress try to change it again starting two years before bammy took office? because they realized that it was keeping the recession from going to a full blown depression.
> Why hasn't bammy tried to change it in the 7 years he has been pretending to be president? because its still working and without it his increase in the debt would even be worse.
> Take responsibility. Your guys allowed it. over 16 years of democrat leadership since Ronald Regan and not once has change been attempted. Because it WORKED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you have ZERO honesty.
> 
> Yep, Clinton (with ONLY Dem support) lifted taxes from 17% of GDP to 20%+ of GDP via his 1993 tax policy that not ONE single GOPer voted for?
> 
> It took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%
> 
> You morons NEVER accept that GOP obstruction stop Obama from implementing the Buffett tax (min 30% on $1,000,000+ incomes), or lowering Corp tax rates from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using new revenues to help with infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just why didn't the Dems overwhelm the low informed GOPers?
> 
> HINT, 6 YEARS OF GOP/DUBYA POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT WHEN DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS, AND WHEN THE SECOND BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE CAME IN(BJ BILL #1) IN JAN 2009, THE ECONOMY WAS ON ANOTHER GOP CREATED CLIFF DUMMY!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and when will you finally admit that the financial crisis during President Bush's administration was caused by Jimmy Carter and then set up for certain failure by Bill Clinton.
> liberals are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure, Dubya's regulator failure was Carters fault. And I thought YOU were complaining the Dems could've fixed Reagan's trickle down? lol
> 
> Right wingers (especially you) are fukkn lying tools!
Click to expand...

Might be a lying tool in your eyes, however to most that just equates to, someone that is able to provide for himself without demanding others help.
 you should try it sometime. Do they have a basket weaving class at your group home? you could try learning that skill and see if you could sell the end product.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
Click to expand...


*Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
*
Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
Build a wall, deport the illegals.


----------



## Dad2three

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you cant see the errors in what you posted you are a bigger idiot that I first suspected.
> get somebody to help you. Try one of the people without the helmet and pads running around your living space.
Click to expand...


So in other words you can't point out ONE single thing and TRY to refute it, instead you'll post UNRELATED BS (that I had linked for a dozen years, BTW) AND TRY TO SPIN IT? LOL


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
> Expensive too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you'll need to back up your claim.
> Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument
> Show a correlation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Low-skilled illegals compete for jobs with low skilled Americans. Pretty clear.
> As far as expensive, about $11000 per illegal kid per year for education in Illinois.
> Add the costs of increased crime, increased police/prison expenses and emergency room expenses....just more spending we can't afford.
Click to expand...

No correlation, and you fail to understand the situation, as shown by your failure to refute my article. Yes, children deserve a education.


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
Click to expand...

LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your crews to get their fitness certificate? Lol! Still paying your employees twice the rate of every other company and selling for less than your competitors and raking in a higher profit margin? Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the company that is now going to file for bankruptcy?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the ceo became less capitalist and took a pay cut.
Click to expand...

And the company is going under because he is a shity ceo

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Certificate of Fitness (their name for it) is required by my insurance company prior to any and all sub-contractors entering the work site. It includes business licenses, permits, insurance, surety bonds, and workers status.
> 
> I pay my employees twice the rate because the profit is so high. I spread the wealth, not pocket it.
> 
> I make a higher profit than my competitors because I'm smarter than they are. Plus, I fix what they screw up at three times or more of the contract rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the company that is now going to file for bankruptcy?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the ceo became less capitalist and took a pay cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the company is going under because he is a shity ceo
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The inability of the right wing to live in reality, IS amazing to see daily. fukknn weirdos! 




The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.


That new business won’t start paying off for 12 to 18 months, however



http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
Click to expand...


*Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*

Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?

* you want to deport millions of human beings.
*
Yes I do.
*
What, do you want land mines?*

Probably won't be needed.


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
Click to expand...

Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.
Click to expand...

*
Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life?*

And they can magically fly over a serious wall, if we built it?

*Oh, modern day Nazi.*

LOL!


----------



## David_42

Toddsterpatriot said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life?*
> 
> And they can magically fly over a serious wall, if we built it?
> 
> *Oh, modern day Nazi.*
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

I rest my case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life?*
> 
> And they can magically fly over a serious wall, if we built it?
> 
> *Oh, modern day Nazi.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...


You had a case? LOL!


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's your number?  You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point?  You're yelling that they need to pay more.  Okay, how much more?  What figure would satisfy your envy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...

Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?


----------



## dcraelin

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented Immigrants Taking Jobs From US Citizens? Most Americans Believe Immigration Is Bad For Economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncontrolled illegal immigration of low-skilled workers is bad for the economy.
> Expensive too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you'll need to back up your claim.
> Immigration helps American workers: The definitive argument
> Show a correlation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Low-skilled illegals compete for jobs with low skilled Americans. Pretty clear.
> As far as expensive, about $11000 per illegal kid per year for education in Illinois.
> Add the costs of increased crime, increased police/prison expenses and emergency room expenses....just more spending we can't afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No correlation, and you fail to understand the situation, as shown by your failure to refute my article. Yes, children deserve a education.
Click to expand...



I consider myself of the left but disagree on immigration. Your link was just an overview of the study.....and as far as I could see had a lot of establishment double-speak within the points listed.

one  point actually said that immigrants dont take jobs because those jobs would go overseas anyway.   Which fails to address the policy option of trade barriers tariffs etc.  

surely everyone could agree that at some point a rising amount of immigrants would negatively effect wage rates, and again the study does not seem to correlate immigrant numbers with anything......


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Envy huh? lol
> 
> Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that  we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol
> 
> AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
Click to expand...


Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol



DECEMBER 1, 2012






*Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

*Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

*President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

*But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

*Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.*


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority



*A fleeting, illusory supermajority*


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol
> 
> 
> 
> DECEMBER 1, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*
> 
> 
> A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
> 
> *Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*
> 
> But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
> 
> This timeline shows the facts.
> 
> *President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
> 
> He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*
> 
> The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
> 
> That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
> 
> *But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*
> 
> So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
> 
> *Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*
> 
> In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
> 
> Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?
> 
> I didn't think so.*
> 
> 
> Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> 
> 
> 
> *A fleeting, illusory supermajority*
Click to expand...

Apparently, it wasn't enough of a priority for him to even try to "fix", or more likely it didn't need "fixing".  Anyone recall a fight where super powerful Republicans in the minority successfully thwarted Obama's grand plan with huge majority numbers to "fix" the Reagan era tax cuts?  I don't.  Instead, I remember a massive stool sample (we have to pass it to see what's in it) of legislation getting rammed through (oh, wait, I thought Republicans could stop anything Obama wanted to do.  Guess not).


----------



## Boss

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
Click to expand...


No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so, since that won't do anything to the Obama deficit, what, beyond spite, will be accomplished by doing so?  And what will you do when they avoid paying a lot of taxes and are still rich?  Demand more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol
> 
> 
> 
> DECEMBER 1, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*
> 
> 
> A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
> 
> *Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*
> 
> But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
> 
> This timeline shows the facts.
> 
> *President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
> 
> He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*
> 
> The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
> 
> That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
> 
> *But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*
> 
> So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
> 
> *Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*
> 
> In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
> 
> Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?
> 
> I didn't think so.*
> 
> 
> Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> 
> 
> 
> *A fleeting, illusory supermajority*
Click to expand...


*Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
*
He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Boss said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
Click to expand...

*
 It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants.*

Not me.
*
Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
*
Exactly. God forbid ISIS attacks us by sneaking over the border. We will use minefields if that happens.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
Click to expand...



Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol
Click to expand...


The best way to get them to leave is to eliminate the cause. So let's do it.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75%  BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"
> 
> Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage
Click to expand...


Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75%  BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"
> 
> Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.
Click to expand...


*Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts.
*
Dad is a liberal, he's really bad at math.

_ In an industry dominated by global banking giants and mammoth processors, the company last year processed $6.5 billion in sales for 12,000 clients, most of them small- and medium-size businesses......

The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
_
They added an extra 150 in June, based on their good publicity, supposedly, an extra 1.25%.

An extra 75% means they need to get up to 21,000. They have a ways to go before Dad's claim comes true.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol
Click to expand...


But they don't all come here to work. What about the ones who come here to be thieves and rapists? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who come to be terrorists and commit terrorist acts? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who just want to come here and live off the government handouts? Any ideas on how we can go after why they came?

I have always been in favor of strict penalties for companies who hire illegal aliens. I thought it was one of the worst arguments ever made by Bush regarding jobs Americans won't do. I don't have a problem with heavy fines or even jail time for people who knowingly hire illegal aliens... BUT... Houston, we have a problem here....

How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification? How does a company comply without profiling, discriminating or violating rights to privacy? How can we hold them responsible for Pedro's clever ability to forge fake documentation? It's easy to say, punish employers who hire illegals, it's hard to enforce it in today's politically correct, over-litigious and hypersensitive environment. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it's going to take some understanding when it comes to verification processes and such.


----------



## Boss

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants.*
> 
> Not me.



Sorry, that should have been directed at Dope2three.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?



*Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.*

Perhaps in Canada. Name one company in the US that went bankrupt because they paid their employees twice the going rate. In the US, how do you tell when a business owner is lying? When she/he tells you they're not making any money. 

*How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?*

Who says I don't? I don't pay for the leasing and maintenance of 300 pieces of equipment because I own the leasing company. I don't pay for supplies from two of the three supply companies because I own the suppliers. I'm the only company that provides on-going maintenance of towers as well as provides leasing of space which pays VERY WELL.


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> Certificate applies to the NYFD sorry!
> 
> The rest of your rant is BS! You are talking out your ass once again.



Here's a trades reference. I sub members of what? The trades. 

http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf

I have 20,000 more examples of how you are wrong.

Writing of 'you are wrong,' 

How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.*
> 
> Perhaps in Canada. Name one company in the US that went bankrupt because they paid their employees twice the going rate. In the US, how do you tell when a business owner is lying? When she/he tells you they're not making any money.
> 
> *How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?*
> 
> Who says I don't? I don't pay for the leasing and maintenance of 300 pieces of equipment because I own the leasing company. I don't pay for supplies from two of the three supply companies because I own the suppliers. I'm the only company that provides on-going maintenance of towers as well as provides leasing of space which pays VERY WELL.
Click to expand...


Wow.. helluva business model.... I'm a CPA and have seen many business people "not make any money".  That's where I come in.  And you charge twice the market rate?  That's like saying you sell Cheerios for $8 and Winn Dixie sells them for $4 and you sell just as much.

I wanna know your secret cause you just blew the notion of competition right out of the water!!!


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> A "Certificate of Fitness" is issued by the fire department and says your building is in compliance with fire safety codes.  It has nothing to do with business licenses, worker status or anything else that bears no relation to fire safety.
> 
> You're obviously a lying piece of shit.



Here's a trades reference.

http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf


----------



## OnePercenter

Papageorgio said:


> The issue is one percenter claims to pay his employees twice the wages of his competitors, charges his customers less than his competitors and has a wider profit margin than his competitors. There are fixed costs in every business. So, if you are paying employees more, charging customers less. His profit margin can't be twice the average. He can't explain it , never has. His story is bogus.



If you knew anything about business, how would you reduce or eliminate a 'fixed cost?'


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75%  BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"
> 
> Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.
Click to expand...



TWO  out of 120 employees sound like you bubs, right winger

"The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been a*dding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up."*


*YOUR ARE WELCOME BUBS*

*http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/*


----------



## OnePercenter

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail.
> 
> The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company
> 
> _Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.
> 
> For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.
> 
> Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._
Click to expand...


Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.



Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.


----------



## Boss

OnePercenter said:


> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.



Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?  

I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they don't all come here to work. What about the ones who come here to be thieves and rapists? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who come to be terrorists and commit terrorist acts? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who just want to come here and live off the government handouts? Any ideas on how we can go after why they came?
> 
> I have always been in favor of strict penalties for companies who hire illegal aliens. I thought it was one of the worst arguments ever made by Bush regarding jobs Americans won't do. I don't have a problem with heavy fines or even jail time for people who knowingly hire illegal aliens... BUT... Houston, we have a problem here....
> 
> How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification? How does a company comply without profiling, discriminating or violating rights to privacy? How can we hold them responsible for Pedro's clever ability to forge fake documentation? It's easy to say, punish employers who hire illegals, it's hard to enforce it in today's politically correct, over-litigious and hypersensitive environment. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it's going to take some understanding when it comes to verification processes and such.
Click to expand...




A BUNCH OF RAPIST DRUG DEALERS AND TERRORISTS HUH? LOL

You fukkn moron


Jun 19, 2006


*Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized*


The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. *The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.*



* In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three. *

The government's steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress


Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized

EVER HEAR OF EVERIFY?

*Few use feds' simple tool to verify legal workers *


Called E-Verify, the online government program uses records from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to instantly check an employee's legal status after being hired. When word gets around that an employer uses the program, illegal immigrants stop applying, experts say.


*
...The program has run into strong opposition from business groups that say it creates an administrative burden. But experts say the real reason is that E-Verify makes it harder to hire illegal workers.*


The debate over E-Verify has put local conservative groups in a tricky position: They oppose illegal immigration, but they support businesses that rely on illegal immigrants

BIGGEST CHEERLEADER? RIGHT WING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!
Few use feds' simple tool to verify legal workers



GOV'T HANDOUTS HUH? You clueless freaking idiot!


----------



## OnePercenter

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Wow.. helluva business model.... I'm a CPA and have seen many business people "not make any money".  That's where I come in.  And you charge twice the market rate?  That's like saying you sell Cheerios for $8 and Winn Dixie sells them for $4 and you sell just as much.
> 
> I wanna know your secret cause you just blew the notion of competition right out of the water!!!



As a CPA, why didn't those business people make any money? 

As a CPA, why would you compare and contrast a retail example when I own a service business? 

As a CPA, if a business owner reduced or eliminated fixed costs, wouldn't that show a higher net profit?

As a CPA, why wouldn't a service business charge more to fix a screw-up by a competitor?


----------



## Boss

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.
Click to expand...


How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law? 

So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?


----------



## OnePercenter

Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
Click to expand...


Bloviating.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
Click to expand...


GROW A BRAIN DUMBDUMB


Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.


One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital
is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking ,
inframarginal returns , and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return
(the riskless return to waiting)

.
The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally. Based on these recent research findings,TPC has updated  its corporate income tax incidence
.
For standard distributional analyses , TPC now treats* 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all capital, and 60 percent on  the supernormal returns to corporate equity (shareholders)*


*We now also distinguish the incidence of changes in the corporate income tax that affect only the normal return, such as changes in cost recovery rules, which we distribute 50 percent to labor and 50 percent to the normal return to all capital.* 
*
In addition, for short -run analyses of changes in the corporate income tax we now treat all of the burden as falling on shareholders*

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf


----------



## OnePercenter

Boss said:


> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?



More bloviating.

If an employer used as an example, e-verify, and the employee past, then they didn't knowingly hire an illegal worker. No profiling involved.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> A BUNCH OF RAPIST DRUG DEALERS AND TERRORISTS HUH? LOL



Yes. In every border town across the Southwest, crimes committed by illegal aliens is out of control. Real American people being murdered, robbed and raped every day. And a Democrat base that couldn't give two shits about that because supporting illegal immigration might mean some votes. What a despicable disgrace and waste of good air.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
Click to expand...



I wish you had a functioning brain Bubs

HE SAID NO ONE PAYS THE TAX RATES, NOT TAXES. Marginal rates VERSUS effective rates is what he mean dummy!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> A BUNCH OF RAPIST DRUG DEALERS AND TERRORISTS HUH? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. In every border town across the Southwest, crimes committed by illegal aliens is out of control. Real American people being murdered, robbed and raped every day. And a Democrat base that couldn't give two shits about that because supporting illegal immigration might mean some votes. What a despicable disgrace and waste of good air.
Click to expand...



lol, Humorous Bubba

Jun 16, 2015 - U.S. citizens may fear homegrown jihadists, but law enforcement is more worried about _right_-_wing_ extremists.




Nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by _right_-_wing_ extremists since 9/11 as have died at the hands of radical Muslims on US soil

Right-wing terrorists twice as likely to kill Americans than Muslim jihadists are ‒ report

35,000 a year die by guns in the us each year, it's the illegals bubs? lol


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certificate applies to the NYFD sorry!
> 
> The rest of your rant is BS! You are talking out your ass once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a trades reference. I sub members of what? The trades.
> 
> http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf
> 
> I have 20,000 more examples of how you are wrong.
> 
> Writing of 'you are wrong,'
> 
> How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?
Click to expand...



That applies to individuals and their qualifications, not to businesses.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

Wrong again!


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is one percenter claims to pay his employees twice the wages of his competitors, charges his customers less than his competitors and has a wider profit margin than his competitors. There are fixed costs in every business. So, if you are paying employees more, charging customers less. His profit margin can't be twice the average. He can't explain it , never has. His story is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about business, how would you reduce or eliminate a 'fixed cost?'
Click to expand...


You can reduce your property tax bill by moving to a state with lower property taxes.  The same goes for your utility bill and your insurance.

However, that's irrelevant to your claim that you can pay your employees twice as much as your competitors.  Wages normally constitution a businesses biggest expense.


----------



## Boss

OnePercenter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More bloviating.
> 
> If an employer used as an example, e-verify, and the employee past, then they didn't knowingly hire an illegal worker. No profiling involved.
Click to expand...


It's not bloviating, it's being factual. E-verify is a great tool... but in California, they passed a law in 2011 to *prohibit* requiring employers to use it. Liberals argue it violates rights to privacy. So IF we're going to get tough on companies who hire illegals, we need to get our ducks in a row on this...we can't enforce the laws when liberals stand in the way and reject our measures.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.
Click to expand...


Why don't we just cut off their heads?  That would do the trick, eh?

The Supreme Court would call your plan "cruel and unusual."  It would be unconstitutional, in other words.


----------



## bripat9643

Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More bloviating.
> 
> If an employer used as an example, e-verify, and the employee past, then they didn't knowingly hire an illegal worker. No profiling involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not bloviating, it's being factual. E-verify is a great tool... but in California, they passed a law in 2011 to *prohibit* requiring employers to use it. Liberals argue it violates rights to privacy. So IF we're going to get tough on companies who hire illegals, we need to get our ducks in a row on this...we can't enforce the laws when liberals stand in the way and reject our measures.
Click to expand...


Doesn't federal law require employers to use it?


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> That applies to individuals and their qualifications, not to businesses.
> 
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!
> 
> Wrong again!



Businesses don't hire those individuals?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

Wrong again!  LOL!!!


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> You can reduce your property tax bill by moving to a state with lower property taxes.  The same goes for your utility bill and your insurance.
> 
> However, that's irrelevant to your claim that you can pay your employees twice as much as your competitors.  Wages normally constitution a businesses biggest expense.



No, try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they don't all come here to work. What about the ones who come here to be thieves and rapists? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who come to be terrorists and commit terrorist acts? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who just want to come here and live off the government handouts? Any ideas on how we can go after why they came?
> 
> I have always been in favor of strict penalties for companies who hire illegal aliens. I thought it was one of the worst arguments ever made by Bush regarding jobs Americans won't do. I don't have a problem with heavy fines or even jail time for people who knowingly hire illegal aliens... BUT... Houston, we have a problem here....
> 
> How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification? How does a company comply without profiling, discriminating or violating rights to privacy? How can we hold them responsible for Pedro's clever ability to forge fake documentation? It's easy to say, punish employers who hire illegals, it's hard to enforce it in today's politically correct, over-litigious and hypersensitive environment. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it's going to take some understanding when it comes to verification processes and such.
Click to expand...

*
How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification?
*
You're supposed to prove you're a citizen/have permission to work here.
Make E-Verify mandatory. If you catch a guy with fake ID, don't release him with a 12 month later court date.
Quick court date, ship him home.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Soggy in NOLA said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.  How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who paid his workers twice the going rate would go bankrupt.*
> 
> Perhaps in Canada. Name one company in the US that went bankrupt because they paid their employees twice the going rate. In the US, how do you tell when a business owner is lying? When she/he tells you they're not making any money.
> 
> *How can you pay them twice the market rate if your company doesn't earn twice the market rate?*
> 
> Who says I don't? I don't pay for the leasing and maintenance of 300 pieces of equipment because I own the leasing company. I don't pay for supplies from two of the three supply companies because I own the suppliers. I'm the only company that provides on-going maintenance of towers as well as provides leasing of space which pays VERY WELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.. helluva business model.... I'm a CPA and have seen many business people "not make any money".  That's where I come in.  And you charge twice the market rate?  That's like saying you sell Cheerios for $8 and Winn Dixie sells them for $4 and you sell just as much.
> 
> I wanna know your secret cause you just blew the notion of competition right out of the water!!!
Click to expand...


He has no competition in his imagination.
That also explains his illegally low tax rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, our capitalists should pay the finest tax rates money can pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do.  Our corporate tax rate is 40%... the highest in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the one about a company ceo taking a pay cut but giving his employees a pay raise to the company minimum of $70k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it.  Such a sad story. Took the poor guy all of 3 months to fail.
> 
> The Sad Saga of the $70,000 Minimum Salary Company
> 
> _Clearly, the entrepreneur acted impulsively, didn’t think things through, and, ultimately, he and his employees may pay a steep price for it. There are some very good reasons why none of you should even think about trying this sort of move at your own company today, tomorrow, or ever.
> 
> For one thing, it incentivizes the wrong employee behavior. Price lost some of his best people over his move and I can see why. An entry-level new hire who just clocks in and out is suddenly making almost as much as a veteran supervisor who busted her hump for years only to be rewarded with a miniscule raise.
> 
> Leveling the playing field all at once as he did breeds resentment and virtually eliminates the merits of meritocracy. You simply can’t raise the minimum salary that high without it having a negative ripple effect throughout the organization. You just can’t._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
Click to expand...

*
Nobody pays tax rates.*

You  a tax rate on your corporate profit.


----------



## OnePercenter

Boss said:


> It's not bloviating, it's being factual. E-verify is a great tool... but in California, they passed a law in 2011 to *prohibit* requiring employers to use it. Liberals argue it violates rights to privacy. So IF we're going to get tough on companies who hire illegals, we need to get our ducks in a row on this...we can't enforce the laws when liberals stand in the way and reject our measures.



Even though it's not required, I use it. If you want to 'get our ducks in a row' make it a federal law.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.
Click to expand...


The Nazi accusations aren't convincing anyone except the already deluded open-borders assholes like you.  Every nation on earth has a right to control its borders.  The claim that we don't is a novel idea pushed by those who hate America.

Do you give about Americans looking for work or who have low wages because they have to compete with cheap foreign labor?


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> *Why don't we just cut off their heads? * That would do the trick, eh?
> 
> The Supreme Court would call your plan "cruel and unusual."  It would be unconstitutional, in other words.



Only for illegal Canadians.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about immigration.  Do we need to make a new word to define _*illegal*_ immigrants? It seems you keep getting them confused with immigrants. An *illegal* immigrant is not an immigrant. They are criminals who violated our law and entered our nation illegally. Potentially, they are a national security risk because we don't know who they are or where they came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, you'd think the GOP/CONServatives would want to go after WHY they came here, you know JOBS? Oh yeah, can't touch those "job creators" right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they don't all come here to work. What about the ones who come here to be thieves and rapists? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who come to be terrorists and commit terrorist acts? How do we go after why they came? What about the ones who just want to come here and live off the government handouts? Any ideas on how we can go after why they came?
> 
> I have always been in favor of strict penalties for companies who hire illegal aliens. I thought it was one of the worst arguments ever made by Bush regarding jobs Americans won't do. I don't have a problem with heavy fines or even jail time for people who knowingly hire illegal aliens... BUT... Houston, we have a problem here....
> 
> How do we hold companies accountable when we restrict them from even being able to ask Pedro for proper identification? How does a company comply without profiling, discriminating or violating rights to privacy? How can we hold them responsible for Pedro's clever ability to forge fake documentation? It's easy to say, punish employers who hire illegals, it's hard to enforce it in today's politically correct, over-litigious and hypersensitive environment. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it's going to take some understanding when it comes to verification processes and such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A BUNCH OF RAPIST DRUG DEALERS AND TERRORISTS HUH? LOL
> 
> You fukkn moron
> 
> 
> Jun 19, 2006
> 
> 
> *Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized*
> 
> 
> The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.
> 
> Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. *The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.*
> 
> 
> 
> * In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three. *
> 
> The government's steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress
> 
> 
> Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized
> 
> EVER HEAR OF EVERIFY?
> 
> *Few use feds' simple tool to verify legal workers *
> 
> 
> Called E-Verify, the online government program uses records from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to instantly check an employee's legal status after being hired. When word gets around that an employer uses the program, illegal immigrants stop applying, experts say.
> 
> 
> *
> ...The program has run into strong opposition from business groups that say it creates an administrative burden. But experts say the real reason is that E-Verify makes it harder to hire illegal workers.*
> 
> 
> The debate over E-Verify has put local conservative groups in a tricky position: They oppose illegal immigration, but they support businesses that rely on illegal immigrants
> 
> BIGGEST CHEERLEADER? RIGHT WING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!
> Few use feds' simple tool to verify legal workers
> 
> 
> 
> GOV'T HANDOUTS HUH? You clueless freaking idiot!
Click to expand...

*
The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.*


It's true, Bush was horrible when it came to immigration.
Only Obama is worse.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He has no competition in his imagination.
> That also explains his illegally low tax rate.



I have competition. I use their weaknesses to promote my business.

Again, nobody pays tax rates, not even you.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> *Nobody pays tax rates.*
> 
> You  a tax rate on your corporate profit.



?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.*
> 
> 
> It's true, Bush was horrible when it came to immigration.
> Only Obama is worse.



U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has no competition in his imagination.
> That also explains his illegally low tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have competition. I use their weaknesses to promote my business.
> 
> Again, nobody pays tax rates, not even you.
Click to expand...


*Again, nobody pays tax rates, not even you.*

Your business doesn't pay a tax rate on your imaginary $36.5 million profit?
How do you calculate your tax liability?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More bloviating.
> 
> If an employer used as an example, e-verify, and the employee past, then they didn't knowingly hire an illegal worker. No profiling involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not bloviating, it's being factual. E-verify is a great tool... but in California, they passed a law in 2011 to *prohibit* requiring employers to use it. Liberals argue it violates rights to privacy. So IF we're going to get tough on companies who hire illegals, we need to get our ducks in a row on this...we can't enforce the laws when liberals stand in the way and reject our measures.
Click to expand...



In 2011 California passed Assembly Bill 1236, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire* except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.*

*HOW LONGS THE GOP HAD CONGRESS BUBS? LOL*

*BUT BIZ OWNERS CAN CHOOSE TO BE PATRIOTIC RIGHT BUBS? *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.*
> 
> 
> It's true, Bush was horrible when it came to immigration.
> Only Obama is worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama's fake deportation stats notwithstanding, he's even worse than Bush was.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you had a functioning brain Bubs
> 
> HE SAID NO ONE PAYS THE TAX RATES, NOT TAXES. Marginal rates VERSUS effective rates is what he mean dummy!
Click to expand...

Do you mean
 what he mean dummy
or
 what he means dummy
or
what he meant dummy.

I know its hard to type when you have to hit the keys with the pencil super glued to your helmet, but please do try harder.


----------



## Papageorgio

OnePercenter said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certificate applies to the NYFD sorry!
> 
> The rest of your rant is BS! You are talking out your ass once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a trades reference. I sub members of what? The trades.
> 
> http://labor.alaska.gov/lss/forms/cof-regs.pdf
> 
> I have 20,000 more examples of how you are wrong.
> 
> Writing of 'you are wrong,'
> 
> How would you undo the deregulation of the HMO act which eliminated real competition in the healthcare insurance industry?
Click to expand...


Has nothing to do whether they are illegal aliens or not.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Henry Ford justify doing something similar in the early 1900s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know but the time to argue vociferously in favor of the CEOs plan seems to be over now. This is what is wrong with Socialists... they can never admit when their ideas fail.
> 
> Go read the article I posted and stop arguing this was a good idea... it* FAILED! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY in right wing world could losing 2 right wing employees OUT OF OVER 120+ , INCREASING BIZ BY 75%  BE CONSIDERED "FAILING"
> 
> Seattle company copes with backlash on $70,000 minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not seeing that the two employees were right wing. Also not seeing business increased by 75%. Can you show me from the article these two facts. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TWO  out of 120 employees sound like you bubs, right winger
> 
> "The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been a*dding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up."*
> 
> 
> *YOUR ARE WELCOME BUBS*
> 
> *http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/*
Click to expand...


Fuck face, you,have no proof that they were right wingers. So the guy increased business for one month. It has to be sustainable. I hope he makes it, but like he said things are tight because his brother is suing him.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> HOW LONGS THE GOP HAD CONGRESS BUBS? LOL



Hey, don't come at ME with what the GOP hasn't done about illegal immigration... ask Mitch McConnell and John Boehner why nothing has been done! This is one of the main reasons you have Trump and Carson, two non-politicians, leading the race for the GOP nomination. 

We're going to build a damn wall.. when it is finished and the paint is drying, we will pass mandatory e-verify and we will undoubtedly have to endure a SCOTUS challenge to it, led by the people YOU vote for.   So sit down, shut up and wait for your moment to be a complete hypocrite again!


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Alex Nowrasteh, a former immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and currently a *Cato Institute immigration policy analyst, pointed out, FAIR's study is riddled with errors and based on "poor methodology" that "fatally undermine this study":*
> 
> 
> *FAIR's numerous errors, poor methodology, and failure to address criticisms of its previous work on this issue fatally undermine this study. *FAIR's methodology is so flawed that it leads to absurd conclusions. Applying its study's reasoning to studying the children of American citizens, one could conclude that it never pays to have children because the fiscal costs will always outweigh the benefits. That is prima facie absurd.
> 
> FAIR ignores the benefits of unauthorized immigration by claiming that other people, namely American citizens who are unemployed or underemployed, would step into the void. That conclusion ignores economic reality. Those who are unemployed or underemployed do not live in a state of economic hibernation cut off from all activity. Even if the jobs and businesses left vacant after deporting all unauthorized immigrants were somehow filled by Americans, the economic activity of those millions of people is still lost.
> 
> FAIR has a long history of making anti-immigrant remarks and is connected to white nationalist organizations. The group's founder, John Tanton, is the modern day architect of the anti-immigrant, nativist movement and also has a history of making anti-immigrant and racially charged remarks.
> 
> 
> Fox Borrows "Fact" On Immigration Costs From Hate Group's Debunked Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigration Expert: Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Add At Least $1.5 Trillion To The U.S. Economy Over 10 Years.* In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue."
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj32n1/cj32n1-12.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. A report by the Bush-era White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool."
> 
> http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Strength in Diversity updated 061912.pdf#page=2
> 
> 
> Bloomberg BusinessWeek: "By 2030, Nearly 70 Percent Of Latinos Who Came To The U.S. During The 1990s Are Expected To Own A Home."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Immigrants do more then just that bub. Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants, and you want to deport millions of human beings.. What, do you want land mines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, like a wall will stop immigrants*
> 
> Why can't a wall stop millions of illegals?
> 
> * you want to deport millions of human beings.
> *
> Yes I do.
> *
> What, do you want land mines?*
> 
> Probably won't be needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because immigrants are usually desperate people looking for a better life? Oh, modern day nazi. Probably won't be needed? LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi accusations aren't convincing anyone except the already deluded open-borders assholes like you.  Every nation on earth has a right to control its borders.  The claim that we don't is a novel idea pushed by those who hate America.
> 
> Do you give about Americans looking for work or who have low wages because they have to compete with cheap foreign labor?
Click to expand...

we have a Commerce Clause in law; why is the right so willing to imply Capitalism is useless.


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has no competition in his imagination.
> That also explains his illegally low tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have competition. I use their weaknesses to promote my business.
> 
> Again, nobody pays tax rates, not even you.
Click to expand...

i pay taxes at a certain rate.


----------



## Arizona Willie

If businesses don't pay taxes why do cities / states offer them tax breaks to move there?

If businesses don't pay taxes why do they care how much they are taxed? According to you they don't pay it anyway.

If businesses don't pay taxes why do they pay armies of lobbiests to get their tax rates cut?

If businesses don't pay taxes why do they pay armies of tax accountants to jigger their numbers and get them the lowest tax possible?

BUSINESSES DO PAY TAXES AND THEY COME OUT OF THE PROFITS THAT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO SHAREHOLDERS ( although hardly any business actually pays dividends anymore --- they prefer to hold massive amounts of cash in offshore banks ).

*==============*



Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
Click to expand...


----------



## Arizona Willie

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

*================*




Boss said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

Arizona Willie said:


> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.



So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW LONGS THE GOP HAD CONGRESS BUBS? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, don't come at ME with what the GOP hasn't done about illegal immigration... ask Mitch McConnell and John Boehner why nothing has been done! This is one of the main reasons you have Trump and Carson, two non-politicians, leading the race for the GOP nomination.
> 
> We're going to build a damn wall.. when it is finished and the paint is drying, we will pass mandatory e-verify and we will undoubtedly have to endure a SCOTUS challenge to it, led by the people YOU vote for.   So sit down, shut up and wait for your moment to be a complete hypocrite again!
Click to expand...



LOL, You REALLY think those losertarians will get enough votes in the general election? lol

Mittens got 82% of the conservative vote (pretty damn high) when he got spanked. I figure IF those two run the GOP MIGHT get 90%, and lose the general election by record amounts! lol

*Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone*

An influential set of conservatives argues changing demographics won't doom the GOP, but the smart money -- *and the math *-- are not on their side.

This much is undisputed: In 2012, President Obama lost white voters by a larger margin than any winning presidential candidate in U.S. history. In his reelection, *Obama lost ground from 2008 with almost every conceivable segment of the white electorate.* With several key groups of whites, he recorded the weakest national performance for any Democratic nominee since the Republican landslides of the 1980s.

Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone


----------



## RKMBrown

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
Click to expand...


Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
Click to expand...


The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. *But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income. *

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports


----------



## hadit

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top 1% are taxed at 23% EFFECTIVE rates. Go to 46% and the deficit IS wiped out Bubs
> 
> AND still leaves them VASTLY wealthy. Weird right Bubs?
> 
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)*
> 
> Top 1% income  $1,976,738 (trillion)
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol
> 
> 
> 
> DECEMBER 1, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*
> 
> 
> A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
> 
> *Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*
> 
> But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
> 
> This timeline shows the facts.
> 
> *President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
> 
> He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*
> 
> The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
> 
> That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
> 
> *But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*
> 
> So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
> 
> *Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*
> 
> In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
> 
> Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?
> 
> I didn't think so.*
> 
> 
> Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> 
> 
> 
> *A fleeting, illusory supermajority*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> *
> He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
> Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.
Click to expand...

He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote.  Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant remember the exact figures.......but I once calculated out that if the top 20% paid something like 5% more...........and if we remained revenue neutral,...........then the bottom 80% would have to pay NOTHING.
> 
> but of course I guess I'm and old school conservative in some ways cause I think deficits and debt matter and I would want that paid down rather than continue to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol
> 
> 
> 
> DECEMBER 1, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*
> 
> 
> A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
> 
> *Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*
> 
> But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
> 
> This timeline shows the facts.
> 
> *President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
> 
> He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*
> 
> The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
> 
> That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
> 
> *But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*
> 
> So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
> 
> *Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*
> 
> In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
> 
> Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?
> 
> I didn't think so.*
> 
> 
> Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> 
> 
> 
> *A fleeting, illusory supermajority*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> *
> He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
> Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote.  Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?
Click to expand...


Don't understand how Gov't works huh?You MUST be a Tea Bagger


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that would be on *income *taxes, not all federal taxes
> 
> Bottom 80% of US own less than 11% of ALL US wealth
> 
> 
> 
> What gets me is the "rights" rant against the bottom 50% of US who went from almost 18% of the entire pie in 1980 to 11% today, a drop of almost $5,000 PER family. The bottom HALF OF US make as much income as JUST the top 1/10th of 1% of US, yet the bottom half of US average less than $15,000 PER family
> 
> But I agree with you,I prefer not to run large deficits or create the debt that can be traced back to Reagan/Dubya's policies, like cutting federal revenues AS they ramped up spending. If we just decided to go with the Buffett rule  (min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes),  it cuts the deficits by almost 25%
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> Remind us again why Obama didn't fix all that when he had total control of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing world EVERYTHING should be fixed AFTER Dubya/GOP put US on the edge of the cliff? lol
> 
> 
> 
> DECEMBER 1, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority*
> 
> 
> A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,
> 
> *Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.*
> 
> But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.
> 
> This timeline shows the facts.
> 
> *President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
> 
> He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.*
> 
> The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
> 
> That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
> 
> *But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.*
> 
> So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
> 
> *Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.*
> 
> In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
> 
> Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.* Do you see a two-year supermajority?
> 
> I didn't think so.*
> 
> 
> Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> 
> 
> 
> *A fleeting, illusory supermajority*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
> *
> He had 58 Senators and a huge majority in the House for 2 years.
> Why was he so weak? He's supposed to be so smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He managed to ram through obamadon'tcare without a single Republican vote.  Why couldn't he "fix" this, if he really wanted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand how Gov't works huh?You MUST be a Tea Bagger
Click to expand...

Oh yes, can't forget the kickbacks, the exemptions, the side deals.  Don't understand what a massive majority means, huh?  You MUST be an Obama voter.  Here's a clue.  He didn't "fix" it because he knew it make things worse.  IOW, better to leave it be.

Hey, weren't the TeaBaggers the adults only floor show at the last DNC convention?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
Click to expand...


So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
Click to expand...


FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs

This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
Click to expand...


Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
Click to expand...

I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
Click to expand...


Oh, okay... sorry... so if we ask someone a question in English and they can't respond in English, we can assume they are illegal aliens?  ....I'm just trying to clarify your position.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, okay... sorry... so if we ask someone a question in English and they can't respond in English, we can assume they are illegal aliens?  ....I'm just trying to clarify your position.
Click to expand...





This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!


----------



## Boss

..........So you won't answer my question? 

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination. 

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Boss said:


> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?


actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
 anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen. 
 I think that clears it up.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?




I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!


You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!


----------



## Dad2three

*Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes *


Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.


”*The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”*

Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes


----------



## Dad2three

Dad2three said:


> *Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes *
> 
> 
> Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.
> 
> 
> ”*The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”*
> 
> Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes



Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.

*“The benefits do not trickle down,”

*
But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. *“In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”*

Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:* A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.


Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF*


----------



## KissMy

Dad2three said:


> Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.
> 
> *“The benefits do not trickle down,”
> 
> *
> But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. *“In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”*
> 
> Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:* A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.*
> 
> 
> *Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF*


Yup! - It's a Proven Fact that Reaganomics lowered GDP growth. Clinton & Obamanomics has reversed that! Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 had multiple negative GDP recessions on their watch. Clinton & Obama had no Recessions on their watch.


----------



## Boss

Maryland Patriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
> anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen.
> I think that clears it up.
Click to expand...


Well no, not really... Juan could have been raised in a home where everyone spoke Spanish his entire life and that was what he had learned to speak. Or maybe Juan is embarrassed by speaking in English? What if Juan is 50 or older and lived here 20 years? None of these possibilities can be dismissed because if you denied employment to a legal citizen on the basis you assumed they are illegal, you have to be able to back up your assumption in court if they sue you... which, they will. 

So AGAIN I ask...  Do you favor profiling an individual on the basis of their ability to speak English? And should we assume that all persons unable to speak English are illegal aliens?  Because, if not... you can't expect employers to be responsible for _*unknowingly*_ hiring illegal aliens.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
Click to expand...


Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't. 

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right? 

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!


----------



## Claudette

Since the rich already pay about 60% of the total taxes paid to the Govt. I'd say no.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
Click to expand...



ONCE MORE:


*I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

*As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*

*You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
*
AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*


----------



## Dad2three

Claudette said:


> Since the rich already pay about 60% of the total taxes paid to the Govt. I'd say no.



The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. *But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income. *

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...


Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?

"Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes *
> 
> 
> Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays out a damning indictment of Ronald Reagan’s deregulation and sweeping tax cuts that have resulted in the worst income inequality in the developed world and have been holding America back for the past thirty years. He definitively debunks the delusional “trickle-down” theory of income transfer and bemoans the fact that social mobility in America has been crippled by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%, preventing hard-working Americans from moving upwards in society or improving their lots in life.
> 
> 
> ”*The same market forces, the same forces of technological globalization are at work in the same way in advanced countries. It’s not the economic forces. It’s our policies.”*
> 
> Watch: A Nobel Economist Debunks Trickle-Down Reaganomics In Four Minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.
> 
> *“The benefits do not trickle down,”
> 
> *
> But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. *“In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”*
> 
> Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:* A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.*
> 
> 
> *Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF*
Click to expand...


* contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics
*
What is this  “trickle-down” economics I always hear liberals whining about?

*Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:
*
Is that why liberals want millions of illegals to come to the US? To raise up the poor?
Of course it hurts our poor and middle class, but they never talk about that.


----------



## Dad2three

`


bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?

Can we build one along the northern border too? lol


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.
> 
> *“The benefits do not trickle down,”
> 
> *
> But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. *“In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”*
> 
> Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect:* A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.*
> 
> 
> *Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup! - It's a Proven Fact that Reaganomics lowered GDP growth. Clinton & Obamanomics has reversed that! Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 had multiple negative GDP recessions on their watch. Clinton & Obama had no Recessions on their watch.
Click to expand...


You're being facetious, right?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
Click to expand...


Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb. 

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions. 

If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that? 

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
Click to expand...


Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.


----------



## Taz

The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
Click to expand...


Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*

Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day



*The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*


Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.





And Arizona.





And New Mexico.





The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.






So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.

“It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”

Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.

“…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...



The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air





.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
Click to expand...


I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba

Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this

ONCE MORE:

*I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

*As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*


----------



## Dad2three

Taz said:


> The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.



But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:














The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
Click to expand...


What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
Click to expand...


Right, I forgot, it WASN'T the GOP who mostly controlled Congress the past 20 years, lol


Yeah, ANOTHER CONservative who "thinks" bigger is always better *shaking head*


Yes, lets live like Israel *shaking head*

But the US is Israels sugar daddy, whose gonna be ours for the fence, CONservatives/GOP sure aren't going to up tax revenues to pay for it!!!


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
Click to expand...


Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:*...I get it Bubba...*



Yepp, you get it, Bubba... You get that great big jar of Vaseline and apply it to your stinging liberal asshole where you just got butt-raped by your Boss with your own stupid point. That's what *YOU* get!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot, it WASN'T the GOP who mostly controlled Congress the past 20 years, lol
> 
> 
> Yeah, ANOTHER CONservative who "thinks" bigger is always better *shaking head*
> 
> 
> Yes, lets live like Israel *shaking head*
> 
> But the US is Israels sugar daddy, whose gonna be ours for the fence, CONservatives/GOP sure aren't going to up tax revenues to pay for it!!!
Click to expand...


Building a wall means we have suicide bombers murdering our citizens by the thousands?  Israel built the wall because they had a problem to solve.  They don't have a problem because they built the wall.  In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. You have the cause effect relationship reversed.

The fence Israel built costs $4 million/mile.  That comes to about $8 billion for the same thing along our Southern border.  I think we can afford that.  it's definitely cheaper than the $120 billion we spend every year providing illegals with government services.

And yes, some Republicans also colluded to keep the wall from being built.  However, Americans overwhelmingly support it.

As usual, the arguments against building the wall are all dumber than dumb.  The American people aren't buying it any longer.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
Click to expand...


There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.  

The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot, it WASN'T the GOP who mostly controlled Congress the past 20 years, lol
> 
> 
> Yeah, ANOTHER CONservative who "thinks" bigger is always better *shaking head*
> 
> 
> Yes, lets live like Israel *shaking head*
> 
> But the US is Israels sugar daddy, whose gonna be ours for the fence, CONservatives/GOP sure aren't going to up tax revenues to pay for it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall means we have suicide bombers murdering our citizens by the thousands?  Israel built the wall because they had a problem to solve.  They don't have a problem because they built the wall.  In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. You have the cause effect relationship reversed.
> 
> The fence Israel built costs $4 million/mile.  That comes to about $8 billion for the same thing along our Southern border.  I think we can afford that.  it's definitely cheaper than the $120 billion we spend every year providing illegals with government services.
> 
> And yes, some Republicans also colluded to keep the wall from being built.  However, Americans overwhelmingly support it.
> 
> As usual, the arguments against building the wall are all dumber than dumb.  The American people aren't buying it any longer.
Click to expand...



MORE CONservative "math" lol


Keep "believing" your right wing nonsense NOT based on history, rationality, math or honest Bubba, it's ALL the losertarians have!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:*...I get it Bubba...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yepp, you get it, Bubba... You get that great big jar of Vaseline and apply it to your stinging liberal asshole where you just got butt-raped by your Boss with your own stupid point. That's what *YOU* get!
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, sure. I've personally spanked you soooo many times, I'm shocked some posters haven't called the cops on me for abuse of the dumb and mentally handicapped!


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity? 


Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Boss said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
> anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen.
> I think that clears it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, not really... Juan could have been raised in a home where everyone spoke Spanish his entire life and that was what he had learned to speak. Or maybe Juan is embarrassed by speaking in English? What if Juan is 50 or older and lived here 20 years? None of these possibilities can be dismissed because if you denied employment to a legal citizen on the basis you assumed they are illegal, you have to be able to back up your assumption in court if they sue you... which, they will.
> 
> So AGAIN I ask...  Do you favor profiling an individual on the basis of their ability to speak English? And should we assume that all persons unable to speak English are illegal aliens?  Because, if not... you can't expect employers to be responsible for _*unknowingly*_ hiring illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

 so, you didn't read what I posted.
 you were answered there. If Juan is between the ages of 18 and 54 and does not speak English, Juan is illegal and does not qualify to work in this country.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot, it WASN'T the GOP who mostly controlled Congress the past 20 years, lol
> 
> 
> Yeah, ANOTHER CONservative who "thinks" bigger is always better *shaking head*
> 
> 
> Yes, lets live like Israel *shaking head*
> 
> But the US is Israels sugar daddy, whose gonna be ours for the fence, CONservatives/GOP sure aren't going to up tax revenues to pay for it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall means we have suicide bombers murdering our citizens by the thousands?  Israel built the wall because they had a problem to solve.  They don't have a problem because they built the wall.  In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. You have the cause effect relationship reversed.
> 
> The fence Israel built costs $4 million/mile.  That comes to about $8 billion for the same thing along our Southern border.  I think we can afford that.  it's definitely cheaper than the $120 billion we spend every year providing illegals with government services.
> 
> And yes, some Republicans also colluded to keep the wall from being built.  However, Americans overwhelmingly support it.
> 
> As usual, the arguments against building the wall are all dumber than dumb.  The American people aren't buying it any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MORE CONservative "math" lol
> 
> 
> Keep "believing" your right wing nonsense NOT based on history, rationality, math or honest Bubba, it's ALL the losertarians have!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know math is hard for libturds.  That's why you think there's money for stuff like free college for everyone and unlimited healthcare.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
Click to expand...

Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
Click to expand...


No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.
Click to expand...


I don't think illegals are going to be driving tanks over our border, numskull.

Every excuse I read for not building the wall is dumber than dumb.

Just admit you're one of those open borders assholes.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
Click to expand...

Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think illegals are going to be driving tanks over our border, numskull.
> 
> Every excuse I read for not building the wall is dumber than dumb.
> 
> Just admit you're one of those open borders assholes.
Click to expand...

How did you read my statement about using a "ladder" to go over a wall and hear "TANK?"  Are you drunk?


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's right.  It needs to be manned.  the only people assuming it won't be manned are open-borders assholes like you.  

we need the wall.  The only reason for objecting to is that you support open borders.

Go fuck fuck yourself


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think illegals are going to be driving tanks over our border, numskull.
> 
> Every excuse I read for not building the wall is dumber than dumb.
> 
> Just admit you're one of those open borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you read my statement about using a "ladder" to go over a wall and hear "TANK?"  Are you drunk?
Click to expand...


You mentioned the French, which means the Maginot Line.  The Germans didn't use ladders to get by that.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right.  It needs to be manned.  the only people assuming it won't be manned are open-borders assholes like you.
> 
> we need the wall.  The only reason for objecting to is that you support open borders.
> 
> Go fuck fuck yourself
Click to expand...

No, you lying piece of shit ass-hole.  I do not support open borders.  The reason we have illegal immigration is because the river is not being guarded.  And even in the few places where it is, our POS president has ordered ICE to invite them in instead of turn them away.  It's not because we need to replace the river border with a wall border ya dumb ass.  What part of we are ARMING MEXICAN CARTELS and defending their practice of selling us drugs has you all confused?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine the employers, deport the illegals, build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
Click to expand...


*The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*

Then let's totally finish it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
Click to expand...


Will the guards be using live ammo?


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will the guards be using live ammo?
Click to expand...

Do cops use live ammo?  Of course they do.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think illegals are going to be driving tanks over our border, numskull.
> 
> Every excuse I read for not building the wall is dumber than dumb.
> 
> Just admit you're one of those open borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you read my statement about using a "ladder" to go over a wall and hear "TANK?"  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned the French, which means the Maginot Line.  The Germans didn't use ladders to get by that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the germans did use ladders to get men over the walls and barbed wire.  You're focusing on tanks here.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Why not a solution versus jumping on board with  band aid that Trumpster proposes for his low informed base? Oh right, SOLUTIONS are not in the right wing world vocabulary, except to claim them as their own, AFTER progressives did it!


----------



## Boss

Maryland Patriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> actually except for certain exemptions like age or a mental issue keeping them from learning English, It is a requirement for citizenship.
> anyone that is in the working age would know at least basic English in order to be legal. So, in short if Juan comes in looking for a job and he is between the ages of 18 and 54 and cant speak English, he is not a legal citizen.
> I think that clears it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, not really... Juan could have been raised in a home where everyone spoke Spanish his entire life and that was what he had learned to speak. Or maybe Juan is embarrassed by speaking in English? What if Juan is 50 or older and lived here 20 years? None of these possibilities can be dismissed because if you denied employment to a legal citizen on the basis you assumed they are illegal, you have to be able to back up your assumption in court if they sue you... which, they will.
> 
> So AGAIN I ask...  Do you favor profiling an individual on the basis of their ability to speak English? And should we assume that all persons unable to speak English are illegal aliens?  Because, if not... you can't expect employers to be responsible for _*unknowingly*_ hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you didn't read what I posted.
> you were answered there. If Juan is between the ages of 18 and 54 and does not speak English, Juan is illegal and does not qualify to work in this country.
Click to expand...


well, yes.. I read what you posted. You didn't answer sufficiently. We need to be crystal clear on this before we proceed with policy. Juan can be 50 and lived in the US for 20 years and not be required to speak or write in English to be a citizen. Juan can be socially awkward and not feel like communicating verbally in English. Juan can have a hearing or learning disability and not be able to comprehend that he is expected to communicate in English. Juan could have learned English at age 20 when he became a citizen, then forgotten it because he lives in a culture that doesn't speak English and a society that enables him to function by pressing "1" for español! OR... may be that Juan is a LEGAL immigrant  who is temporarily here and just needs a job? 

We can't say that employers can apply your "language criteria" and always be correct. Not only would it be racial profiling, it would be racially discriminatory and just plain wrong. If a Conservative dared to utter such an insane idea as this, they would be crucified by the left... but you reel it off glibly like it's not a big deal... Hell, no need in asking anyone for "papers" just see if they can speak English, right?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:*...I get it Bubba...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yepp, you get it, Bubba... You get that great big jar of Vaseline and apply it to your stinging liberal asshole where you just got butt-raped by your Boss with your own stupid point. That's what *YOU* get!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure. I've personally spanked you soooo many times, I'm shocked some posters haven't called the cops on me for abuse of the dumb and mentally handicapped!
Click to expand...


Don't share your perverted sex fantasies here.


----------



## RKMBrown

German WW2 Fortifications and Obstacles


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right.  It needs to be manned.  the only people assuming it won't be manned are open-borders assholes like you.
> 
> we need the wall.  The only reason for objecting to is that you support open borders.
> 
> Go fuck fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you lying piece of shit ass-hole.  I do not support open borders.  The reason we have illegal immigration is because the river is not being guarded.  And even in the few places where it is, our POS president has ordered ICE to invite them in instead of turn them away.  It's not because we need to replace the river border with a wall border ya dumb ass.  What part of we are ARMING MEXICAN CARTELS and defending their practice of selling us drugs has you all confused?
Click to expand...


If you genuinely supported sealing the borders, you would support building the wall.  There simply isn't a good reason for not doing it.  All the reasons you have posted are downright stupid.  The fact that we have scumbags in office like Obama is even more of a reason to build the wall, because once it's built, it can't be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.   The border guards can't invite anyone when they're sitting in a guard tower or patrolling behind the wall.

If another piece of shit like Obama gets into office, what are you going to do then, ask "pretty please" to seal the border?


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> German WW2 Fortifications and Obstacles



We aren't trying to defend against armored divisions, bombers, and artillery.  If walls don't keep people on one side of them, then why do we put them around prisons?  Why does every U.S. military installation have a chain link fence around it?

The claim that walls don't work is utterly stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> Because only dumb asses like the french believe humans won't be able to easily avoid man made obstacles.  FYI even Mexicans know how to use ladders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think illegals are going to be driving tanks over our border, numskull.
> 
> Every excuse I read for not building the wall is dumber than dumb.
> 
> Just admit you're one of those open borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you read my statement about using a "ladder" to go over a wall and hear "TANK?"  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned the French, which means the Maginot Line.  The Germans didn't use ladders to get by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the germans did use ladders to get men over the walls and barbed wire.  You're focusing on tanks here.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, no they didn't, not unless the enemy was already vanquished.  Climbing a wall while under fire is suicide.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not a solution versus jumping on board with  band aid that Trumpster proposes for his low informed base? Oh right, SOLUTIONS are not in the right wing world vocabulary, except to claim them as their own, AFTER progressives did it!
Click to expand...


The wall is a solution.  Amnesty is not a solution.  That's what Democrats mean whenever they use the word "solution."  They mean amnesty.  They mean to aggravate the problem, not solve it.  Just like the last time they proposed a "solution."


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not a solution versus jumping on board with  band aid that Trumpster proposes for his low informed base? Oh right, SOLUTIONS are not in the right wing world vocabulary, except to claim them as their own, AFTER progressives did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall is a solution.  Amnesty is not a solution.  That's what Democrats mean whenever they use the word "solution."  They mean amnesty.  They mean to aggravate the problem, not solve it.  Just like the last time they proposed a "solution."
Click to expand...




Sure the wall is a solution, there isn't ladders, visa overstays, etc

*Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980 *

*"Rather than putting up a fence...*

**




* Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.  Ronnie*

*http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128*



*Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. The bill made nearly 3 million illegal immigrants eligible for amnesty*

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason we call it the "Chamber of Crony Capitalism."  The chamber is populated with Establishment RINOs.  Conservatives laugh at it.
> 
> The fact that the "plutocrats" oppose it is the reason not to make E-verify mandatory?   Since when did Dims start taking orders from plutocrats?   Oh, yeah . . . . .  they always have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not a solution versus jumping on board with  band aid that Trumpster proposes for his low informed base? Oh right, SOLUTIONS are not in the right wing world vocabulary, except to claim them as their own, AFTER progressives did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall is a solution.  Amnesty is not a solution.  That's what Democrats mean whenever they use the word "solution."  They mean amnesty.  They mean to aggravate the problem, not solve it.  Just like the last time they proposed a "solution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the wall is a solution, there isn't ladders, visa overstays, etc
> 
> *Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980 *
> 
> *"Rather than putting up a fence...*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.  Ronnie*
> 
> *http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. The bill made nearly 3 million illegal immigrants eligible for amnesty*
> 
> A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
Click to expand...


How is that calling for open borders?


----------



## Taz

Dad2three said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%
Click to expand...

They pay more taxes in one year than you'll pay in your lifetime. Quit your bitchin'.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%
Click to expand...


That isn't a much smaller percentage, dumbass.  Few Americans pay more than that.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right.  It needs to be manned.  the only people assuming it won't be manned are open-borders assholes like you.
> 
> we need the wall.  The only reason for objecting to is that you support open borders.
> 
> Go fuck fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you lying piece of shit ass-hole.  I do not support open borders.  The reason we have illegal immigration is because the river is not being guarded.  And even in the few places where it is, our POS president has ordered ICE to invite them in instead of turn them away.  It's not because we need to replace the river border with a wall border ya dumb ass.  What part of we are ARMING MEXICAN CARTELS and defending their practice of selling us drugs has you all confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you genuinely supported sealing the borders, you would support building the wall.  There simply isn't a good reason for not doing it.  All the reasons you have posted are downright stupid.  The fact that we have scumbags in office like Obama is even more of a reason to build the wall, because once it's built, it can't be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.   The border guards can't invite anyone when they're sitting in a guard tower or patrolling behind the wall.
> 
> If another piece of shit like Obama gets into office, what are you going to do then, ask "pretty please" to seal the border?
Click to expand...

No.  Building a wall next to a river IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE is just idiotic. Take your foolish ideas and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.  If you want to stop people from crossing all you need to do is put men on the border and FUCKING DO IT.  They ARE NOT BEING STOPPED BECAUSE WE HAVE NO ONE ON THE BORDER STOPPING THEM.  IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WALL YOU DUMB ASS.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> German WW2 Fortifications and Obstacles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't trying to defend against armored divisions, bombers, and artillery.  If walls don't keep people on one side of them, then why do we put them around prisons?  Why does every U.S. military installation have a chain link fence around it?
> 
> The claim that walls don't work is utterly stupid.
Click to expand...

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEFENDED FENCE AROUND A SMALL MILITARY INSTALLATION AND THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MILES OF NOTHING BUT TREES WATER AND DIRT.  Putting a wall undefended in the middle of fucking no where is fucking idiotic.  We don't need a fucking wall we need people on the border given the job of policing the border to keep people out.


----------



## KissMy

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.


The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the 20% of  America who follow CONservatives like Rushblo  or Insannity?
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, YOU and your ilk are done in America, time to go back to being the Birchers hiding in the closet1!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean the majority of all Americans.  They are fed up with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not a solution versus jumping on board with  band aid that Trumpster proposes for his low informed base? Oh right, SOLUTIONS are not in the right wing world vocabulary, except to claim them as their own, AFTER progressives did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall is a solution.  Amnesty is not a solution.  That's what Democrats mean whenever they use the word "solution."  They mean amnesty.  They mean to aggravate the problem, not solve it.  Just like the last time they proposed a "solution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the wall is a solution, there isn't ladders, visa overstays, etc
> 
> *Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980 *
> 
> *"Rather than putting up a fence...*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.  Ronnie*
> 
> *http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128*
> 
> 
> 
> *Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. The bill made nearly 3 million illegal immigrants eligible for amnesty*
> 
> A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that calling for open borders?
Click to expand...


During a 1980 debate with George H.W. Bush, Reagan talked about open borders.

"Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems?* Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit — and then while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems."*

In his farewell address Reagan talked about a "shining city on a hill" — now a mantra of modern Republicanism.* "And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here," Reagan said.*


----------



## Dad2three

Taz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay more taxes in one year than you'll pay in your lifetime. Quit your bitchin'.
Click to expand...



YET the super rich "job creators" have more than tripled their "share" of the pie since Reaganomics AS their EFFECTIVE TAX RATES HAVE BEEN SLASHED


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich already pay way more taxes than the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes, ESPECIALLY the super rich fortunate 400 whose tax "burden" is about 20%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't a much smaller percentage, dumbass.  Few Americans pay more than that.
Click to expand...



YES DUMMY, MUCH SMALLER TAX BURDEN THAN WHAT THEY USED TO HAVE, AS THEIR SHARE OF THE PIE HAS TRIPLED!!!


----------



## KissMy

RKMBrown said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
Click to expand...


We already have 20,000 border patrol getting over $65k each as illegals walk by. That's 4 patrols per mile. One guy can easily patrol a 2 mile section with binoculars & radio. Do you want to grow government & pay more to jerk us off?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.


----------



## Dad2three

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
Click to expand...


Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right? 

Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
Click to expand...


Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
Click to expand...



Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
Click to expand...

What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.

Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?


----------



## thanatos144

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
Click to expand...

Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say put the elected officials in jail who refuse to enforce the law and even stop our law enforcement folk from fining the employers and deporting illegals.
> As for the wall.. building a wall in the desert next to a river... makes no sense.  What is needed is observation towers and law enforcement presence with the backing of our government to do their job.  What we have is a piece of shit president who has re-tasked our law enforcement personnel into being bus drivers and enablers for illegal immigration.  Instead of punishing illegals we give them money and a free ride into the country.  Our laws are a fucking joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
Click to expand...

Democrats in Congress hate the country 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
Click to expand...

You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does building it in the desert make no sense?  Should we build it in Colorado?
> 
> "Law enforcement present" can be made to disappear with the stroke of a pen.  The wall also reduces the manpower needed at the border.  Those who oppose the wall are either dumbasses or open-borders assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because WALLS and guys with guns keep drugs and cell phones out of the prison system right?
> 
> Can we build one along the northern border too? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls do a great job of keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, LET'S US LIVE LIKE ISRAEL, *shaking head*
> 
> Don't usually like this source, but even a clock is correct twice a day
> 
> 
> 
> *The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists.*
> 
> 
> Newsflash to both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter: that wall you’re saying the U.S. needs to build along its border with Mexico…it mostly exists. There aren’t any lasers, a shark-filled moat, or auto-turrets, but it’s there. Don’t believe me? Here it is in Mexicali, California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Mexico part of the fence might seem a little haphazard, but it’s important to realize how the terrain is. The way the mountains are, it really doesn’t make sense to put a big fence up. No one is (or should) going to try to sneak into the country that way. It’s just too dangerous and probably a development nightmare for builders. There’s also this fence in the Sonoran Desert which marks the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the smaller fence? A part of it has to do with how dangerous the desert is. It’s the climate. The Sonoran Desert is, well, a desert, with blistering heat, mountains, and very little water. When the wall was built in the mid-to-late 2000’s there was no point in building a massive structure because the desert is supposed to be a natural deterrent. It makes no sense to try to cross over through a desert which would probably lead to your death. _The Arizona Republic_ talked to a Border Patrol spokesperson last year who confirmed how dangerous it was.
> 
> “It’s the harshest climate along the U.S.-Mexico border. When you’ve got over 30 days of 100-degree weather, that makes it deadly for anybody crossing out there.”
> 
> Which is pretty much why coyotes were using this desert to get into the U.S. There aren’t a ton of humans there, which is why the cartels probably use the route. They’d probably still use the route, even if the fence was a massive structure. Desperate people will go anywhere, just look at the Texas border crossings from last year. The Texas fence is done, but it’s not a wall across the state. A lot of that has to do with topography. There are plenty of forests along the border in West Texas, once you get past El Paso, and barely any roads. Lupe Dempsey told FOX News in 2013 why illegal immigrants tend to avoid West Texas.
> 
> “…it pushes the migrants into more remote areas where it is easy to get lost, it is very dangerous.”...
> 
> 
> 
> The border wall Donald Trump wants (mostly) exists. «  Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that a wall?  Those are pathetic.  Here's a wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall wasn't build to standards because Democrats in Congress didn't want it built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the GUARD TOWERs.  Without human presence a wall is just a joke.  FYI we have a river that already introduces a fairly decent barrier to cross.  All we need is man power in towers to watch over the river.  We don't need a wall.
Click to expand...

Because Mexicans and Arabs can't swim? 



Put down the bong you are talking retarded 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
Click to expand...

Actually t ha t was only a few companies that paid like shit.... Today those companies would be ran by democrats 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubba, sure



*1890–1928*
*The Progressive Era*


In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.

*In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars).* The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. *Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields*.

Digital History





In 1900, only 6 in 10 school-aged children in New York were enrolled in school. By 1920, 9 out of every 10 school age children were registered.


*The Gordons' Story*

March 12, 1907 — West 28th St. Storm water poured from the ceiling of the basement apartment and down its plaster walls, soaking the family’s meager bed, dresser, and table before coming to rest in deep, dirty puddles on the floor. Maria Gordon’s family—her nine-year-old niece, Edith, and six month-old foster child, Perry—had nowhere to sleep, and the workspace where Maria laundered clothes for her clients was unusable.

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC




From the mid-1800s into the 1900s, reformers pushed for a ban on child labor, arguing that working was bad for child development and that it decreased the wages of working adults. This campaign was successful on the state level—New York created restrictions on child labor in 1903—*but there would be no successful national ban on child labor until 1938.*

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC


The Tenement House Act of 1901 was the third in a series of tenement-reform laws passed by the New York State legislature. Like the laws passed in 1867 and 1879, it aimed to improve conditions in the city’s tenements—particularly in terms of ventilation, waste removal, and fire safety. Unlike previous laws, it provided a mechanism for enforcing its regulations.

Although the Tenement House Act of 1879 required a window in each bedroom, in practice most windows still opened onto dark interior airshafts. In an attempt to bring light and fresh air to bedrooms, the 1901 law set a minimum amount of space outside each window and required that the window be accessible for cleaning. As a result, landlords constructed buildings with courtyards rather than airshafts. To add to the increased illumination of tenement interiors that these modifications provided, the law also required all public spaces inside the buildings to be lit by either natural light (through windows and skylights) or artificial light (powered by gas or electricity).

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
Click to expand...


FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
Click to expand...

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?



*This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *


For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*

This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
Click to expand...

Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


*The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, sure


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
Click to expand...

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> 
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy what year is it right now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Can't refute it huh? lol


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy what year is it right now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't refute it huh? lol
Click to expand...

That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> 
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy what year is it right now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


*Jan 30, 2015


The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires all employees to provide proof to employers that they can legally work in the U.S. *Employers are required to verify the eligibility status of all employees, even those they know are U.S. citizens. It is against the law to knowingly hire someone who is not authorized to work in the United States. 

Even so, the Immigration Reform and Control Act generally forbids you from asking a person to prove his or her citizenship during a job interview or at any time *before* you offer employment.

Verifying a person’s eligibility is something you do only *after* you’ve hired the candidate. You can, however, inform the candidate that you plan on verifying the employment status of any potential new hire. *In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recommends adding the following statement to your employment applications to ensure compliance:


“In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification document form upon hire.” *



When Can You Ask a Worker About Citizenship Status?

AGAIN YOU DUMBFUK


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> 
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy what year is it right now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't refute it huh? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Give me the law dummy? lol


----------



## sealybobo

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
Click to expand...

The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
> 
> 
> 
> No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As discussed on our  Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:
> 
> Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.
> 
> _____ Yes _____ No
> 
> 
> *The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. *See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.
> 
> An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."
> 
> It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.
> 
> Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.
> 
> Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States
> 
> 
> DUMBFUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy what year is it right now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't refute it huh? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


SO YOU DECIDE TO RUN HUH? Can't provide a link to ANY law that stopped allowing you to ask IF THEY ARE LEGALLY ABLE TO WORK IN THE US HUH? lol


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have 20,000 border patrol getting over $65k each as illegals walk by. That's 4 patrols per mile. One guy can easily patrol a 2 mile section with binoculars & radio. Do you want to grow government & pay more to jerk us off?
Click to expand...

Bullshit.  Those 20k are being used to bring illegals in, process them, feed them, give them money and a ride to sanctuary cities.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
Click to expand...

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have 20,000 border patrol getting over $65k each as illegals walk by. That's 4 patrols per mile. One guy can easily patrol a 2 mile section with binoculars & radio. Do you want to grow government & pay more to jerk us off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit.  Those 20k are being used to bring illegals in, process them, feed them, give them money and a ride to sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

thanatos144 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........So you won't answer my question?
> 
> How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for *not knowing* someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.
> 
> From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English.  Is THAT what you want to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


That's funny, because I had to provide documents that proved I was a legal citizen.  All you have to do is require that they fill out an I-9, which needs to be accompanied by two forms of documentation, bot of which prove you are a citizen.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
Click to expand...


You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> *1890–1928*
> *The Progressive Era*
> 
> 
> In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.
> 
> *In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars).* The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. *Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields*.
> 
> Digital History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1900, only 6 in 10 school-aged children in New York were enrolled in school. By 1920, 9 out of every 10 school age children were registered.
> 
> 
> *The Gordons' Story*
> 
> March 12, 1907 — West 28th St. Storm water poured from the ceiling of the basement apartment and down its plaster walls, soaking the family’s meager bed, dresser, and table before coming to rest in deep, dirty puddles on the floor. Maria Gordon’s family—her nine-year-old niece, Edith, and six month-old foster child, Perry—had nowhere to sleep, and the workspace where Maria laundered clothes for her clients was unusable.
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the mid-1800s into the 1900s, reformers pushed for a ban on child labor, arguing that working was bad for child development and that it decreased the wages of working adults. This campaign was successful on the state level—New York created restrictions on child labor in 1903—*but there would be no successful national ban on child labor until 1938.*
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> The Tenement House Act of 1901 was the third in a series of tenement-reform laws passed by the New York State legislature. Like the laws passed in 1867 and 1879, it aimed to improve conditions in the city’s tenements—particularly in terms of ventilation, waste removal, and fire safety. Unlike previous laws, it provided a mechanism for enforcing its regulations.
> 
> Although the Tenement House Act of 1879 required a window in each bedroom, in practice most windows still opened onto dark interior airshafts. In an attempt to bring light and fresh air to bedrooms, the 1901 law set a minimum amount of space outside each window and required that the window be accessible for cleaning. As a result, landlords constructed buildings with courtyards rather than airshafts. To add to the increased illumination of tenement interiors that these modifications provided, the law also required all public spaces inside the buildings to be lit by either natural light (through windows and skylights) or artificial light (powered by gas or electricity).
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
Click to expand...


So government legislation is the reason houses all have indoor plumbing now and childhood diseases were ended?

You're a fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
Click to expand...


Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?

Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...



Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
Click to expand...

ROFL you're a worthless piece of shit.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
Click to expand...


So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?

Talk about dumbasses.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
Click to expand...

The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
Click to expand...


Well, I tell ya what... When Trump gets it built, we can let your boys test it out!


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.



I think a lot of people believe we should.


----------



## Boss

bripat9643 said:


> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?



They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?


----------



## KissMy

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
Click to expand...


*More Republican Big Government & More Spending Comong Up!*


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Dad2three said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
Click to expand...


We do have trade schools, as well as grants, the GI Bill,and a few private companies that help you achieve an an advanced skill or degree that pays more. Usually if an administration has to default to raising a minimum wage, it's because families are only able to find part time jobs through retail stores like Target, Starbucks, or a Walmart. You have to have a president who knows how to encourage and bring about a high paying skill industry. There is no revenue found with welfare and dependency on government, it only adds to the trillions of debt we currently have. Have we learned nothing from Greece?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

KissMy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
Click to expand...


We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> *1890–1928*
> *The Progressive Era*
> 
> 
> In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.
> 
> *In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars).* The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. *Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields*.
> 
> Digital History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1900, only 6 in 10 school-aged children in New York were enrolled in school. By 1920, 9 out of every 10 school age children were registered.
> 
> 
> *The Gordons' Story*
> 
> March 12, 1907 — West 28th St. Storm water poured from the ceiling of the basement apartment and down its plaster walls, soaking the family’s meager bed, dresser, and table before coming to rest in deep, dirty puddles on the floor. Maria Gordon’s family—her nine-year-old niece, Edith, and six month-old foster child, Perry—had nowhere to sleep, and the workspace where Maria laundered clothes for her clients was unusable.
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the mid-1800s into the 1900s, reformers pushed for a ban on child labor, arguing that working was bad for child development and that it decreased the wages of working adults. This campaign was successful on the state level—New York created restrictions on child labor in 1903—*but there would be no successful national ban on child labor until 1938.*
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> The Tenement House Act of 1901 was the third in a series of tenement-reform laws passed by the New York State legislature. Like the laws passed in 1867 and 1879, it aimed to improve conditions in the city’s tenements—particularly in terms of ventilation, waste removal, and fire safety. Unlike previous laws, it provided a mechanism for enforcing its regulations.
> 
> Although the Tenement House Act of 1879 required a window in each bedroom, in practice most windows still opened onto dark interior airshafts. In an attempt to bring light and fresh air to bedrooms, the 1901 law set a minimum amount of space outside each window and required that the window be accessible for cleaning. As a result, landlords constructed buildings with courtyards rather than airshafts. To add to the increased illumination of tenement interiors that these modifications provided, the law also required all public spaces inside the buildings to be lit by either natural light (through windows and skylights) or artificial light (powered by gas or electricity).
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So government legislation is the reason houses all have indoor plumbing now and childhood diseases were ended?
> 
> You're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...


Yes, we don't care about ourselves, government cares about us and takes care of us.  They are why we have food in the table and a car in the garage.  They make the sun shine and the flowers grow.

Yes, he is a fucking moron, but on the other hand... Hmm.  That's all I've got, sorry.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!
Click to expand...


Not in places like San Francisco they don't.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.
Click to expand...


Yes, Democrats need to keep them poor, otherwise they'll stop voting for them


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
Click to expand...


Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.

One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
Click to expand...


Yes we see how much the liberal belief of government spending, and spreading the wealth, has created such a booming economy under President Obama. Trust me, O'Malley tried that in Maryland, as it also resulted in fewer skilled jobs from higher taxes under an exploding debt.


----------



## thanatos144

bripat9643 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!
> 
> You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> 
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, because I had to provide documents that proved I was a legal citizen.  All you have to do is require that they fill out an I-9, which needs to be accompanied by two forms of documentation, bot of which prove you are a citizen.
Click to expand...

Do none of you read what it written? You do that after you have the job but you are not required to. When I am interviewing I am not allowed to ask it they are legal citizens . Nor can I do a back ground check till after given consent or hiring.  Oh and the back ground check can not be to verify citizenship unless they are all ready employed and consent 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

thanatos144 said:


> When I am interviewing I am not allowed to ask it they are legal citizens .



It's all okay though... apparently, according to Dumb2Three, you can just see if they speak English and that determines if they are illegal aliens or not. I am not sure how his policy works for more intelligent illegals who may have learned some English before they came across but since he wants you thrown in jail even if you _unknowingly_ hire an illegal, it might just be best to avoid Latino applicants altogether. Of course, you didn't hear that from ME, I'm a right-winger who isn't allowed to propose such things... it has to come from a liberal to be PC, you see?


----------



## KissMy

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
Click to expand...


So BIG GOVERNMENT is great when it's for what you want???

What do you think Reagan's EMTALA was if it wasn't Very Expensive BIG GOV Healthcare???


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Democrats need to keep them poor, otherwise they'll stop voting for them
Click to expand...

no way; some on the left are trying to convince women to practice more equality, for pay purposes, and let us vote for the chic politicians with the cutest snatch.  it can't be any worse a "market based metric" in our modern political-economy.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I am interviewing I am not allowed to ask it they are legal citizens .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all okay though... apparently, according to Dumb2Three, you can just see if they speak English and that determines if they are illegal aliens or not. I am not sure how his policy works for more intelligent illegals who may have learned some English before they came across but since he wants you thrown in jail even if you _unknowingly_ hire an illegal, it might just be best to avoid Latino applicants altogether. Of course, you didn't hear that from ME, I'm a right-winger who isn't allowed to propose such things... it has to come from a liberal to be PC, you see?
Click to expand...

in my case; Only the general government of the Union is delegated the social Power over lawful entry into the Union since 1808-and, is no longer a State power since then and has never been an Individual power.

we also enjoy our natural rights such as freedom of association and contract which may result in obligations.

We have a Commerce Clause in our supreme law of the land; why are we losing money on Commerce well regulated at our borders instead of the interior?


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I am interviewing I am not allowed to ask it they are legal citizens .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all okay though... apparently, according to Dumb2Three, you can just see if they speak English and that determines if they are illegal aliens or not. I am not sure how his policy works for more intelligent illegals who may have learned some English before they came across but since he wants you thrown in jail even if you _unknowingly_ hire an illegal, it might just be best to avoid Latino applicants altogether. Of course, you didn't hear that from ME, I'm a right-winger who isn't allowed to propose such things... it has to come from a liberal to be PC, you see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in my case; Only the general government of the Union is delegated the social Power over lawful entry into the Union since 1808-and, is no longer a State power since then and has never been an Individual power.
> 
> we also enjoy our natural rights such as freedom of association and contract which may result in obligations.
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause in our supreme law of the land; why are we losing money on Commerce well regulated at our borders instead of the interior?
Click to expand...


When you start drinking heavily this early in the morning it can lead to alcoholism.


----------



## sealybobo

KissMy said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So BIG GOVERNMENT is great when it's for what you want???
> 
> What do you think Reagan's EMTALA was if it wasn't Very Expensive BIG GOV Healthcare???
Click to expand...

That's our government you are talking about. How do we get companies to not gouge us? Our government regulates the market. Government is the referee.

Trust me the government isn't hurting the rich to win our votes. In fact we know corporations now serve lobbyists 80% of the time. So stfu dummy


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Democrats need to keep them poor, otherwise they'll stop voting for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no way; some on the left are trying to convince women to practice more equality, for pay purposes, and let us vote for the chic politicians with the cutest snatch.  it can't be any worse a "market based metric" in our modern political-economy.
Click to expand...

Are you Greek? Because I am and I know many stupid Greeks who are Republicans. Are you one of them?


----------



## bripat9643

Boss said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
Click to expand...


That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Democrats need to keep them poor, otherwise they'll stop voting for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no way; some on the left are trying to convince women to practice more equality, for pay purposes, and let us vote for the chic politicians with the cutest snatch.  it can't be any worse a "market based metric" in our modern political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Greek? Because I am and I know many stupid Greeks who are Republicans. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...

don't get me started with the "class warfare" thing.  i believe real capitalists should purchase their own cruisers and enforce their own private foreign policies; like they used to in a Greek Golden Age.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries.  You can blame Democrats for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Democrats need to keep them poor, otherwise they'll stop voting for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no way; some on the left are trying to convince women to practice more equality, for pay purposes, and let us vote for the chic politicians with the cutest snatch.  it can't be any worse a "market based metric" in our modern political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Greek? Because I am and I know many stupid Greeks who are Republicans. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...


There wouldn't be a Democrat party if it wasn't for stupid Americans.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
Click to expand...

because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> 
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
Click to expand...


So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?

No . . . .  obviously not.

The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
Click to expand...


Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.

The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.


----------



## Boss

bripat9643 said:


> Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.



Of course not, they are hypocrites and liars. Same thing applies to when they talk about democracy and the will of the people... rule of law... special prosecutors... the integrity of the voting process... on and on. It's *only* when it benefits *their* agenda! Otherwise it's judicial activism and legislative tyranny....fly over the wall... crash through the wall... pass it to see what's in it... Supreme Court has final say *forevermore...* as long as it gives them *their* result.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build.  Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
Click to expand...

Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron.  Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
Click to expand...


How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
Click to expand...

we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause.  it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.


----------



## percysunshine

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Like, the rich political class is going to do that?

Dream on.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.



Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> *1890–1928*
> *The Progressive Era*
> 
> 
> In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.
> 
> *In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars).* The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. *Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields*.
> 
> Digital History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1900, only 6 in 10 school-aged children in New York were enrolled in school. By 1920, 9 out of every 10 school age children were registered.
> 
> 
> *The Gordons' Story*
> 
> March 12, 1907 — West 28th St. Storm water poured from the ceiling of the basement apartment and down its plaster walls, soaking the family’s meager bed, dresser, and table before coming to rest in deep, dirty puddles on the floor. Maria Gordon’s family—her nine-year-old niece, Edith, and six month-old foster child, Perry—had nowhere to sleep, and the workspace where Maria laundered clothes for her clients was unusable.
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the mid-1800s into the 1900s, reformers pushed for a ban on child labor, arguing that working was bad for child development and that it decreased the wages of working adults. This campaign was successful on the state level—New York created restrictions on child labor in 1903—*but there would be no successful national ban on child labor until 1938.*
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> The Tenement House Act of 1901 was the third in a series of tenement-reform laws passed by the New York State legislature. Like the laws passed in 1867 and 1879, it aimed to improve conditions in the city’s tenements—particularly in terms of ventilation, waste removal, and fire safety. Unlike previous laws, it provided a mechanism for enforcing its regulations.
> 
> Although the Tenement House Act of 1879 required a window in each bedroom, in practice most windows still opened onto dark interior airshafts. In an attempt to bring light and fresh air to bedrooms, the 1901 law set a minimum amount of space outside each window and required that the window be accessible for cleaning. As a result, landlords constructed buildings with courtyards rather than airshafts. To add to the increased illumination of tenement interiors that these modifications provided, the law also required all public spaces inside the buildings to be lit by either natural light (through windows and skylights) or artificial light (powered by gas or electricity).
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So government legislation is the reason houses all have indoor plumbing now and childhood diseases were ended?
> 
> You're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...


ALL that and that was your takeaway? lol

Dishonest POS


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?
> 
> Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?
Click to expand...



Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government welfare does not increase wages.  We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?
> 
> Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!
Click to expand...


What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA."  That was a huge boondoggle.  Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity.   Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle?  If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.


----------



## Dad2three

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?
> 
> Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have trade schools, as well as grants, the GI Bill,and a few private companies that help you achieve an an advanced skill or degree that pays more. Usually if an administration has to default to raising a minimum wage, it's because families are only able to find part time jobs through retail stores like Target, Starbucks, or a Walmart. You have to have a president who knows how to encourage and bring about a high paying skill industry. There is no revenue found with welfare and dependency on government, it only adds to the trillions of debt we currently have. Have we learned nothing from Greece?
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, it's  NOT the private sector that have RECORD CORP Profits, lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates in 40 years AND lowest labor costs  (below 50%) EVER recorded, it's a Prez policy that's to blame for PRIVATE INDUSTRY  lack of jobs paying a living wage? After all 60% of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees!

Greece? Have you Klowns learned nothing from trickle down that has seen the US debt explode AS you gutted taxes for the rich?

Where are those "jobs, jobs, jobs" Dubya promised when his POLICIES can be traced back to about $10 trillion of current debt and Reagan's to about $4 trillion? lol


----------



## Dad2three

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
Click to expand...


Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!
Click to expand...



ROFL!  No, it wasn't paid for.  Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.

Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs.  In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.  The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.  Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years. 

Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
Click to expand...


You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
Click to expand...


Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.

Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.

The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?


----------



## Dad2three

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought CONservatives ALREADY decided the "papers please" movement was OK Bubba
> 
> Since YOU are NEVER  going to get honest, I'm done replying to your nonsense on this
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we see how much the liberal belief of government spending, and spreading the wealth, has created such a booming economy under President Obama. Trust me, O'Malley tried that in Maryland, as it also resulted in fewer skilled jobs from higher taxes under an exploding debt.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it wasn't 8 years OF Dubya/GOP policy that dug this ENORMOUS hole they drove the truck in, it was Obama who couldn't get the GOP to work with him ONCE to help the economy AFTER GOP policies dumped the biggest downturn since the first GOP depression on US


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
Click to expand...


Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.
> 
> Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?
> 
> Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it!  ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory!  Ooops! ...We have a problem here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONCE MORE:
> 
> 
> *I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar,* can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol
> 
> *As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!*
> 
> *You are a batshit crazy losertarin* who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?
> *
> AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.
> 
> I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this _*knowing* and *unknowing*_ thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.
> 
> If we are going to hold employers accountable for *unknowingly* hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use *personal judgement* in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?
> 
> Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals.  Progressives are underhanded
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, because I had to provide documents that proved I was a legal citizen.  All you have to do is require that they fill out an I-9, which needs to be accompanied by two forms of documentation, bot of which prove you are a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do none of you read what it written? You do that after you have the job but you are not required to. When I am interviewing I am not allowed to ask it they are legal citizens . Nor can I do a back ground check till after given consent or hiring.  Oh and the back ground check can not be to verify citizenship unless they are all ready employed and consent
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


LISTEN YOU DUMBFUK, STOP REPEATING THE SAME DEBUNKED BS

YES, YOU MAY ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US *BEFORE YOU HIRE THEM*, I GAVE TWO SEPARATE LINKS PROVING IT. YOU? lol


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
Click to expand...



"The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."

EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, they are hypocrites and liars. Same thing applies to when they talk about democracy and the will of the people... rule of law... special prosecutors... the integrity of the voting process... on and on. It's *only* when it benefits *their* agenda! Otherwise it's judicial activism and legislative tyranny....fly over the wall... crash through the wall... pass it to see what's in it... Supreme Court has final say *forevermore...* as long as it gives them *their* result.
Click to expand...



Your projection noted Bubs


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because with other countries, if you don't make enough to eat, you starve.  There is no welfare.
> 
> Let me ask: if you wanted to hire a lawn care company, would you hire one that will come out for $45.00 per cut, or one that will do the same job for $25.00 per cut?  If your car needs some work done, do you choose the mechanic that charges $565.00 to fix your car, or one that will do the same exact job for $320.00?
> 
> You and I don't want to waste money paying labor more than they're worth no more than Wal-Mart.  But if you need your lawn cut, or your car repaired, is it your responsibility to make sure they make a living wage and can stay off of welfare programs?   Of course not.  That's ridiculous.
> 
> Companies don't create jobs as a social obligation because they have no social obligation.  They create jobs because they need help running their business.  That's all. Whether politicians give minimum wage workers the world, or they don't give them anything at all, Wal-Mart could care less.  All they care about is getting the labor they need for the price they want.  What government offers their employees is none of their concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
Click to expand...

They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?

You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.

You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.

And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand

Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.

You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.

You want laws to be selective, selective against things you see that you don't like. You want to stop Koch bros from donating to campaigns, then all business should be stopped from donating to candidates. You want limits on how much rich people can donate, then put the same restrictions on everyone


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?
> 
> Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA."  That was a huge boondoggle.  Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity.   Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle?  If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.
Click to expand...


LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs? 

Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD


Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
Click to expand...


Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No, it wasn't paid for.  Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.
> 
> Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs.  In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.  The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.  Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.
> 
> Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."
Click to expand...



CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops

YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then.  The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.
> 
> Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history?  Are you all really so brainwashed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?
> 
> Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA."  That was a huge boondoggle.  Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity.   Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle?  If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs?
> 
> Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD
> 
> 
> Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol
Click to expand...


How does subsidizing rich farmers make out economy "diverse?"  If homes outside the city wouldn't exist without government subsidies, then why do we need them?

Today an acre of fertile farmland is worth about $10,000.  Someone who owns 100 acres is a millionaire.  Adjusted for inflation, farmland was worth about the same amount in the 1930s.


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
Click to expand...



Says the Klown with a Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere, ever. Weird

But your inability to use  reading comprehension on the posit IS noted Bubba!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No, it wasn't paid for.  Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.
> 
> Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs.  In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.  The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.  Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.
> 
> Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops
> 
> YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking
Click to expand...


The CBO is forced to use all the assumptions handed to them by the supporters of the boondoggle.  It's predictions about the cost are worth about as much as a pint of dog piss.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!
Click to expand...



How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night? 

60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night?
> 
> 60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?
Click to expand...


The Dims had been advocating the same drug program for years.  They just didn't like the details in Bush's plan.    The idea that the Dims wouldn't have spent that money is ludicrous.  They would have spent fare more on it if they had the votes.

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money isn't government spending, numskull.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand capitalism huh? I'm not surprised Bubs. Try reading about the Robber Barron's, perhaps grow a brain and realize most people get off Ayn Rands BS by 25 or so?
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORON
> 
> 
> U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> 
> 
> *Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States*
> 
> 
> *When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.* After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. *The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:*
> 
> 
> Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> *For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. *Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
> 
> 
> TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RADIO/TV AND GRAB SOME HISTORY BOOKS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
Click to expand...


ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*

ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?

Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!

*YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years

Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS

Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?












Socialism huh?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
Click to expand...


Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM


Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed. 

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)


You fukkn lying POS


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> FORTY  YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol
> 
> The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?
> 
> Do you know what a _post hoc_ fallacy is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you don't understand how PROGRESSIVE POLICIES including ELECTRIFICATION OF AMERICA, which CONservatves fought as "Gubrmnt interference" in the markets, created the suburbs and allowed not only the ability to have MODERN conveniences even in the country, it provided PHONE SERVICE TOO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you really mean is they fought government paid "ELECTRIFICATION OF RURAL AMERICA."  That was a huge boondoggle.  Poor families living in the city were taxed so that farmers who owned hundreds or even thousands of acres of land, and were therefore quite wealthy, could have cheap electricity.   Why shouldn't people pay the true cost of their lifestyle?  If farmers want electricity, they should pay the true cost, just like people living in the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, Yeah, why have a diverse economy and the availability to live outside the city right Bubs?
> 
> Without GOV'T POLICY we wouldn't have homes in places outside the city. PERIOD
> 
> 
> Farmers huh? Wealthy back then with hundreds of acres? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does subsidizing rich farmers make out economy "diverse?"  If homes outside the city wouldn't exist without government subsidies, then why do we need them?
> 
> Today an acre of fertile farmland is worth about $10,000.  Someone who owns 100 acres is a millionaire.  Adjusted for inflation, farmland was worth about the same amount in the 1930s.
Click to expand...


Your Randian fetish noted Bubs, look to 3rd world nations to see it at work, lol


Hint MOST farmers didn't own (sharecroppers sound familiar dummy) their property

YOU FUKKN POS


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paid for, unlike ANYTHING CONservatives EVER give US or ANYTHING GOP gave US for 60 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No, it wasn't paid for.  Obama counted ten years worth of added taxes against only six years of expenses on Obamacare, and the estimates of the cost are proving to be way low, as always.
> 
> Democrats have a history of underestimating the cost of their boondoggle programs.  In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.  The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.  Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.
> 
> Only a fool would believe Democrat claims that Obamacare is "paid for."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> CBO says so Bubs, you have ANYTHING that says it isn't? Oops
> 
> YOU MEAN THE PROGRAMS WORKED SO WELL THEY EXPANDED IT, UPPING COSTS?> Shocking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CBO is forced to use all the assumptions handed to them by the supporters of the boondoggle.  It's predictions about the cost are worth about as much as a pint of dog piss.
Click to expand...


Yet the Dems ALWAYS attempt to fund their programs/Gov't policy and the GOP JUST GUTS REVENUES AS THEY RAMP UP SPENDING. Weird how that works right Bubs?


"*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. *Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."*

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lol


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the defence budget, he and the Dims support virtually every dime of what we spend, but deficits are the Republicans' fault!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many Dems voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich, twice? His UNFUNDED Medicare expansion LITERALLY pushed down OUR throats in the middle of the night?
> 
> 60% of Dems voted for Dubya's war of choice you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dims had been advocating the same drug program for years.  They just didn't like the details in Bush's plan.    The idea that the Dims wouldn't have spent that money is ludicrous.  They would have spent fare more on it if they had the votes.
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money isn't government spending, numskull.
Click to expand...



YOUR crystal ball comes out on what the Dems MIGHT have done right? 


Weird how the GOP passed Medicare expansion (in the middle of the night!!!) without a single penny of new revenues AND drove up costs by disallowing Gov't negotiating with Pharma right? lol


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole.  We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
Click to expand...

You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
Click to expand...

no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly it.  Whenever Democrats start whining about what something will cost, you know that isn't the real reason for their whining.  Money is never an obstacle whenever it comes to one their boondoggle social programs.
> 
> 
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
Click to expand...


You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



Dad2three said:


> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol



You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.



Dad2three said:


> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM



There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately 



Dad2three said:


> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.



It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.



Dad2three said:


> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS



The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again *
> 
> 
> For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,*” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” *The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, *wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.*
> 
> This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you are stupid.  The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Comrade Dad, not taking people's money is giving them money.  All money is the people's money.
> 
> One question, why does the word Marxist bother you so much again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean AFTER you put trillions on the credit card like the GOP and refuse to pay for it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, stupid sticks to you like glue.  I'm a libertarian, Holmes, I supported a tiny portion of what we spent.
> 
> Duh, dar, drool, you're not a Democrat, hic, that makes you a Republican, stumble, hits head, passes out.
> 
> The world is a complex place for a simpleton, isn't it, dad?
Click to expand...

No.  You're an authoritarian.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
Click to expand...


Those aren't walls.  Those are fences, and they are a joke.  The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them.  What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car.  I showed you a wall that works.  But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?
> 
> Talk about dumbasses.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.  When have I ever proposed killing illegals?


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't walls.  Those are fences, and they are a joke.  The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them.  What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car.  I showed you a wall that works.  But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.
Click to expand...

You act like the wall you want will somehow be this machine of terror.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't walls.  Those are fences, and they are a joke.  The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them.  What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car.  I showed you a wall that works.  But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.
Click to expand...

We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.  It's no harder to climb a wall than it is a fence.  The only difference is walls are more expensive.


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:



Trump's wall will be bigger and better. 

It will solve the problem... if not, land mines are an option as well.


----------



## David_42

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't walls.  Those are fences, and they are a joke.  The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them.  What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car.  I showed you a wall that works.  But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.  It's no harder to climb a wall than it is a fence.  The only difference is walls are more expensive.
Click to expand...

Bripat and other psychopaths want to kill people looking for a better life, I've heard some like toddster consider fucking land mines..


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.



We should.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers.  In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.  We give them money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.  When have I ever proposed killing illegals?
Click to expand...

If you don't kill em how are you gonna stop em from coming in?  They will just keep coming and coming and coming.  Once they get across we feed and board them then take them to the sanctuary city of their choice.  What part of a wall won't do shit is confusing you?


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's wall will be bigger and better.
> 
> It will solve the problem... if not, land mines are an option as well.
Click to expand...

Wow, that didn't take long, another drooling psychopath who wants to blame Hispanics for everything when immigration is leveling off. I bet you're perfectly ok with blowing the legs off of children and there parents. Fucking ****.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> I've heard some like toddster consider fucking land mines..



Or we could construct a double wall with a 'no-man zone' in the middle and have target practice!


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause not a Great Walls of America clause. it really is that simple, except to the capitalism challenged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce Clause has nothing to do with this. Regulating the commerce between the US and Mexico isn't the problem. Mexicans breaking the law and crossing our border illegally is the problem.  A wall fixes that problem.... it really is that simple, except to the physics-challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no... a wall does not solve anything ... here's your wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't walls.  Those are fences, and they are a joke.  The also don't have guard towers or anyone watching them.  What you are calling a "wall" is like calling a go-cart a car.  I showed you a wall that works.  But you don't want to see what doesn't fit your biases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like the wall you want will somehow be this machine of terror.
Click to expand...


No, that's how you and the rest of the open-borders assholes act.


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
Click to expand...

This is what the right wing has come to, these pro lifers are perfectly ok with planting Land mines and blowing up pregnant mothers, toddlers, seniors, young adults..


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way... if you come to TX and start shooting illegals you will fry in the electric chair.


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard some like toddster consider fucking land mines..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could construct a double wall with a 'no-man zone' in the middle and have target practice!
Click to expand...

The fact that you're serious is concerning.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> Wow, that didn't take long, another drooling psychopath who wants to blame Hispanics for everything...



Nah... I love Hispanics!  

I blame criminals for illegal behavior.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So have the Israelis shot anyone trying to get over the wall?
> 
> No . . . .  obviously not.
> 
> The have guard towers simply to keep on eye on anyone trying to get over the wall.  It's a simple matter to send a patrol vehicle to apprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.  When have I ever proposed killing illegals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't kill em how are you gonna stop em from coming in?  They will just keep coming and coming and coming.  Once they get across we feed and board them then take them to the sanctuary city of their choice.  What part of a wall won't do shit is confusing you?
Click to expand...


Simply drive a few vehicles to the point where they are trying to enter and use normal policing tactics to apprehend them. 

How do you think they are apprehended now?


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's put it this way... if you come to TX and start shooting illegals you will fry in the electric chair.
Click to expand...


Nah. Not if President Trump uses his pen like Obama did.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.  When have I ever proposed killing illegals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't kill em how are you gonna stop em from coming in?  They will just keep coming and coming and coming.  Once they get across we feed and board them then take them to the sanctuary city of their choice.  What part of a wall won't do shit is confusing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply drive a few vehicles to the point where they are trying to enter and use normal policing tactics to apprehend them.
> 
> How do you think they are apprehended now?
Click to expand...

LOL. Such a delusional psychopath. Want a Twinkie?


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's put it this way... if you come to TX and start shooting illegals you will fry in the electric chair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Not if President Trump uses his pen like Obama did.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't going to allow us to murder illegal immigrants, he's not that insane like yourself.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard some like toddster consider fucking land mines..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could construct a double wall with a 'no-man zone' in the middle and have target practice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you're serious is concerning.
Click to expand...


Oh, you should be concerned. Without all those Democrat votes, your little clown parade is about over with.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's put it this way... if you come to TX and start shooting illegals you will fry in the electric chair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Not if President Trump uses his pen like Obama did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump isn't going to allow us to murder illegal immigrants, he's not that insane like yourself.
Click to expand...


It's not "murder" it's military action. We have to defend our borders from invaders. Sorry you don't comprehend that but it's in the Constitution if you'd like to read it.


----------



## thanatos144

So to progressives all Latin people are criminals

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, moron.  They don't cross our border to attack us... they cross to make a living.  There's a fucking difference you piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that make one any easier to stop than the other?  If anything, I imagine terrorists would be harder to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't KILL PEOPLE FOR CROSSING A RIVER TO LOOK FOR WORK.  You kill someone for illegally entering this country and you will FRY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.  When have I ever proposed killing illegals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't kill em how are you gonna stop em from coming in?  They will just keep coming and coming and coming.  Once they get across we feed and board them then take them to the sanctuary city of their choice.  What part of a wall won't do shit is confusing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply drive a few vehicles to the point where they are trying to enter and use normal policing tactics to apprehend them.
> 
> How do you think they are apprehended now?
Click to expand...

They are not apprehended now.  They are picked up for processing, which means given free clothes, food, meals, money and a ride to a sanctuary city.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't kill people for illegal entry moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's put it this way... if you come to TX and start shooting illegals you will fry in the electric chair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Not if President Trump uses his pen like Obama did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump isn't going to allow us to murder illegal immigrants, he's not that insane like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "murder" it's military action. We have to defend our borders from invaders. Sorry you don't comprehend that but it's in the Constitution if you'd like to read it.
Click to expand...

Shooting unarmed men, women, and CHILDREN is not a military action.  It's murder.  Maybe that's how you treat people you don't like in the hood, but that's not how we treat people everywhere else.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection. So robber Barron's  had no help from the rulers and princes of the times?
> So JFK tax policy was bad for the economy?
> Would you prefer the Venezuelan/Bernie sanders system of free trade as bad?
> 
> Yes rich people influence politicians, you seem to be mad at only the rich in general and one set of politicians. But hey we just need the right person in charge to do the right thing right?
> nice sources, and individualism is bad how? So the people in power getting it wrong only need more power and then they'll start doing it right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
Click to expand...

Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy? 

Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

KissMy said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So BIG GOVERNMENT is great when it's for what you want???
> 
> What do you think Reagan's EMTALA was if it wasn't Very Expensive BIG GOV Healthcare???
Click to expand...


Never was there a health care system that forces every citizen to comply or face a government fine, you can't compare this with any other standard because Obamacare set a new precedent in this country.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> because we recognize social programs when we see them; when is the right going to dazzle us with capital programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
Click to expand...


YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

*SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!) 

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
Click to expand...


If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.

An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you recognize huge boondoggles when you see them.  That's what you like.  Spending money wisely is what you don't like.
> 
> The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs.  That's called crony capitalism.  That's a Democrat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
Click to expand...

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird ad homs and a bunch of deflection and BS?
> 
> 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY POSIT TO MAKE OR NOT BUBS, STOP PLAYING IN THE FUKKN GRASS AND GROW UP. Make a posit or go fuk yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
Click to expand...



Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation

UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian? 

NEVER

Swiss huh?

I remember you Klownboy,

MANDATORY military service?

The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*


Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?




There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!


UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?

Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol

THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!


----------



## Dad2three

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fence will do nothing.  Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence.  What is needed is to man the border.  Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs.  Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school.  That will slow down the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of *wall* Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the *wall* built... but we're building a *wall*, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a _fence_, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the *wall* is built.
> 
> And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built.  And in our case, it is _going_ to be built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *More Republican Big Government Spending Comong Up!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We recently had more big government, it's called Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So BIG GOVERNMENT is great when it's for what you want???
> 
> What do you think Reagan's EMTALA was if it wasn't Very Expensive BIG GOV Healthcare???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never was there a health care system that forces every citizen to comply or face a government fine, you can't compare this with any other standard because Obamacare set a new precedent in this country.
Click to expand...



LOL, Talking points are weak from you Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.
> 
> An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.
Click to expand...



Since YOU are the second right winger to buzz into the conversation and not get it, I'll say it once more

THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING AN EMPLOYER FROM ASKING AT A JOB INTERVIEW IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY! None. Yes there are OTHER restrictions, BUT this is the question:

ARE YOU ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY? 

Again, EMPLOYERS KNOW they are hiring people who don't have the RIGHT to legally work i n the US but ARE hiring them BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LOWER WAGES, THAT WAS THE PREMISE!!!


----------



## percysunshine

.
You know, it really sucks that the richest people in the country are mostly liberal Democrats. There is no stopping them now. We are all doomed....

.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
Click to expand...



Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?

Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!

Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't


----------



## percysunshine

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
Click to expand...


Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!

.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation
> 
> UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?
> 
> NEVER
> 
> Swiss huh?
> 
> I remember you Klownboy,
> 
> MANDATORY military service?
> 
> The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*
> 
> 
> Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!
> 
> 
> UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?
> 
> Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol
> 
> THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

percysunshine said:


> .
> You know, it really sucks that the richest people in the country are mostly liberal Democrats. There is no stopping them now. We are all doomed....
> 
> .



Yet the top 6 of 10 are right wing Koch/Walton family who inherited their money. Go figure

*Forbes took at look at the 50 richest clans on our new list of America’s Richest Families. There are a handful of politicians in the mix, and an overwhelming majority that support one political party far more than another.*




The politics of other billion-dollar families aren’t as well known.* Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats*

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?


----------



## Dad2three

percysunshine said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...


----------



## percysunshine

Dad2three said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> You know, it really sucks that the richest people in the country are mostly liberal Democrats. There is no stopping them now. We are all doomed....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the top 6 of 10 are right wing Koch/Walton family who inherited their money. Go figure
> 
> *Forbes took at look at the 50 richest clans on our new list of America’s Richest Families. There are a handful of politicians in the mix, and an overwhelming majority that support one political party far more than another.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The politics of other billion-dollar families aren’t as well known.* Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats*
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
Click to expand...


Top 10 wealthiest senators

Dang ... Democrats....


----------



## percysunshine

Dad2three said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
Click to expand...


Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ad Homs, and no deflections, just asking you to clarify your views. Robber Barron's we're quite influential to those in power were they not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation
> 
> UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?
> 
> NEVER
> 
> Swiss huh?
> 
> I remember you Klownboy,
> 
> MANDATORY military service?
> 
> The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*
> 
> 
> Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!
> 
> 
> UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?
> 
> Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol
> 
> THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!
Click to expand...

What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push.  I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing. 

And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors? 

Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.


----------



## Dad2three

percysunshine said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> You know, it really sucks that the richest people in the country are mostly liberal Democrats. There is no stopping them now. We are all doomed....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the top 6 of 10 are right wing Koch/Walton family who inherited their money. Go figure
> 
> *Forbes took at look at the 50 richest clans on our new list of America’s Richest Families. There are a handful of politicians in the mix, and an overwhelming majority that support one political party far more than another.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The politics of other billion-dollar families aren’t as well known.* Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats*
> 
> Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Top 10 wealthiest senators
> 
> Dang ... Democrats....
Click to expand...


AND THEY SUPPORT THE BUFFETT RULE (min tax 30$ on $1.000,000+ incomes)?  How terrible of them!


*The 50 Richest Members of Congress*

The 50 Richest won’t set new standards for diversity. All are white. Women comprise 18 percent. *There were 20 Democrats and 30 Republicans.

Roll Call's 50 Richest Members of Congress*


----------



## Dad2three

percysunshine said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!
Click to expand...



Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!
> 
> 
> LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!
> 
> 
> Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?
> 
> 
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation
> 
> UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?
> 
> NEVER
> 
> Swiss huh?
> 
> I remember you Klownboy,
> 
> MANDATORY military service?
> 
> The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*
> 
> 
> Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!
> 
> 
> UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?
> 
> Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol
> 
> THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push.  I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.
> 
> And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?
> 
> Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.
Click to expand...




Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*

Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG



PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible.  And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?
> 
> You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.
> 
> You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.
> 
> And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.
> 
> “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand
> 
> Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.
> 
> You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary    utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation
> 
> UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?
> 
> NEVER
> 
> Swiss huh?
> 
> I remember you Klownboy,
> 
> MANDATORY military service?
> 
> The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*
> 
> 
> Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!
> 
> 
> UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?
> 
> Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol
> 
> THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push.  I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.
> 
> And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?
> 
> Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*
> 
> Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?
Click to expand...

Why did they not invade Switzerland? Please inform me. Bc they were holding their gold??? Along with gold from every other European country. 

And yes closed boarders if your a welfare state, that is a very popular libertarian idea. Open boarders would be great for nations to compete...but not with welfare states, that's just a ridiculous policy. And why is mandatory military service bad policy in a NUETRAL NATION?


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*
> 
> ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?
> 
> Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!
> 
> *YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. *Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years
> 
> Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US,  WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS
> 
> Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism huh?
> 
> 
> In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
> 
> In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy.  And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?
> 
> Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees.  Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up.  Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation
> 
> UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?
> 
> NEVER
> 
> Swiss huh?
> 
> I remember you Klownboy,
> 
> MANDATORY military service?
> 
> The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. *The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum*
> 
> 
> Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!
> 
> 
> UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE)  for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?
> 
> Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol
> 
> THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push.  I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.
> 
> And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?
> 
> Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*
> 
> Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did they not invade Switzerland? Please inform me. Bc they were holding their gold??? Along with gold from every other European country.
> 
> And yes closed boarders if your a welfare state, that is a very popular libertarian idea. Open boarders would be great for nations to compete...but not with welfare states, that's just a ridiculous policy. And why is mandatory military service bad policy in a NUETRAL NATION?
Click to expand...



Welfare state? lol


For tactical reasons Hitler made repeated assurances before the outbreak of the Second World War that Germany would respect Swiss neutrality in the event of a military conflict in Europe. In February 1937, he announced that "at all times, whatever happens, we will respect the inviolability and neutrality of Switzerland" to the Swiss federal councillor Edmund Schulthess, reiterating this promise shortly before the German invasion of Poland] *These were, however, purely political maneuvers intended to guarantee Switzerland's passiveness. Nazi Germany planned to end Switzerland's independence after it had defeated its main enemies on the continent first*


*Nazi attitudes towards Switzerland*


Hitler stated his opinion on Switzerland quite plainly:

"Switzerland possessed the most disgusting and miserable people and political system. The Swiss were the mortal enemies of the new Germany."

In a later discussion the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop directly alluded to the possibility of carving up Switzerland between the two Axis powers:

"On the Duce's query whether Switzerland, as a true anachronism, had any future, the Reich Foreign Minister smiled and told the Duce that he would have to discuss this with the Führer."


In August 1942, Hitler further described Switzerland as "a pimple on the face of Europe" and as a state that no longer had a right to exist, denouncing the Swiss people as "a misbegotten branch of our _Volk_."


...Germany started planning the invasion of Switzerland on 25 June 1940, the day France surrendered. At this point the German Army in France consisted of three army groups with two million soldiers in 102 divisions Switzerland and Liechtenstein were completely surrounded by Occupied France and the Axis Powers, and so Guisan issued _Operationsbefehl_ Nr. 10, a complete overhaul of existing Swiss defensive plans.



*
....Hitler never gave the go-ahead, for reasons still uncertain today. *Although the _Wehrmacht_ feigned moves toward Switzerland in its offensives, it never attempted to invade. After D-Day, the operation was put on hold, and Switzerland remained neutral for the duration of the war.

Operation Tannenbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*
PLEASE HOWEVER, LBJ DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS FROM EARLIER???*


----------



## Papageorgio

Dad2three said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.
> 
> An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since YOU are the second right winger to buzz into the conversation and not get it, I'll say it once more
> 
> THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING AN EMPLOYER FROM ASKING AT A JOB INTERVIEW IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY! None. Yes there are OTHER restrictions, BUT this is the question:
> 
> ARE YOU ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY?
> 
> Again, EMPLOYERS KNOW they are hiring people who don't have the RIGHT to legally work i n the US but ARE hiring them BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LOWER WAGES, THAT WAS THE PREMISE!!!
Click to expand...


So you are saying Target knowingly hires illegal aliens? How do they get around the I-9?

An I-9 asks the questions and with the proper documentation they are allowed to work. Now why would I need to ask them if I run all the checks? You can lie in an interview, the verifications are better screens.  

I hire and I I9 and e-verify all employees, I also background check them and drug test. I can't pick and choose which ones to test, run backgrounds or secure their worker status. They all go through the same process.

I'm not understanding the idea if people can't speak English that you assume they are illegal. I by law can not assume that, it is called discrimination and I could put my company in line for a lawsuit.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron
Click to expand...


Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?


----------



## Dad2three

Papageorgio said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.
> 
> An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since YOU are the second right winger to buzz into the conversation and not get it, I'll say it once more
> 
> THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING AN EMPLOYER FROM ASKING AT A JOB INTERVIEW IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY! None. Yes there are OTHER restrictions, BUT this is the question:
> 
> ARE YOU ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY?
> 
> Again, EMPLOYERS KNOW they are hiring people who don't have the RIGHT to legally work i n the US but ARE hiring them BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LOWER WAGES, THAT WAS THE PREMISE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying Target knowingly hires illegal aliens? How do they get around the I-9?
> 
> An I-9 asks the questions and with the proper documentation they are allowed to work. Now why would I need to ask them if I run all the checks? You can lie in an interview, the verifications are better screens.
> 
> I hire and I I9 and e-verify all employees, I also background check them and drug test. I can't pick and choose which ones to test, run backgrounds or secure their worker status. They all go through the same process.
> 
> I'm not understanding the idea if people can't speak English that you assume they are illegal. I by law can not assume that, it is called discrimination and I could put my company in line for a lawsuit.
Click to expand...




Got it, you'll CONTINUE to be a douche and not understand the CONTEXT of the quote from the OTHER low informed right winger who claimed you couldn't ASK if they had a RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US



Now IF you think a group of the cleaning crew at Target who the manager was TRYING to communicate with, none seemed NOT to speak English, BUT to understand English, they needed to get a translator from the store, were here in the US LEGALLY, I HAVE A NICE PIECE OF OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY TO SELL IN JAPAN BUBS! 


ILLEGAL? FROM THE PAPERS PLEASE CROWD? LOL


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?
> 
> Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY?  Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!
> 
> Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?
Click to expand...


Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT


Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT
> 
> 
> Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!
Click to expand...


All the rust belt cities are Democrat controlled, aren't they?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT
> 
> 
> Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rust belt cities are Democrat controlled, aren't they?
Click to expand...



The _Rust Belt_ is a term for the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay *due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector.*


The Rust Belt begins in south-central New York and traverses to the west through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, ending in northern Illinois and eastern Wisconsin. Previously it was known as the industrial heartland of America. However, industry has been declining in the region since the mid-20th century due to a variety of economic factors, such as the transfer of manufacturing to the Southeast, increased automation, the decline of the US steel and coal industries, globalization, and internationalization.


Deteriorating U.S. net international investment position (NIIP) has caused concern among economists over the effects of outsourcing and high U.S. trade deficits over the long-run.







Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in tradeable goods has been an important issue in the region.* One source has been globalization and the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements*. Anti-globalization groups argue that trade with developing countries has resulted in stiff competition from countries such as China which pegs its currency to the dollar and has much lower prevailing wages,* forcing domestic wages to drift downward*. Some economists are concerned that long-run effects of high trade deficits and outsourcing are a cause of economic problems in the U.S. with high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders) and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (−24% of GDP)

On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce, commenting that the* U.S. has outsourced too much in some areas and can no longer rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to drive demand*



*Since the 1960s, the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements have been less favorable to U.S. workers. Imported goods such as steel cost much less to produce in Third World countries with cheap foreign labor*

Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CITIES FAULT HUH? lol


----------



## Andylusion

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."
> 
> EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
Click to expand...


Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

*That said.....*

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....   

That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.


Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

*I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.   

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.


----------



## sakinago

Andylusion said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics. 

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
Click to expand...

y'all think that is bad.  the right can't even bear true witness to our own laws while claiming the social morals of Religion are "better" than the social morals of secular republics.


----------



## Andylusion

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
Click to expand...


D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.

Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.

Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.

Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.

So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.   

This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.

Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.

Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.

Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.

So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.

If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## danielpalos

socialism or just bad management?  socialism in the US should promote the general welfare.  supplemental funds for "fixing problems" are just that; why not frame the problem better so that funds are spent more wisely on the People's behalf.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding."  Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively.  Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded?  Is Social Security "funded?"  Obamacare?  Any liberal social program?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
Click to expand...






"But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars,* that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.*

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. *So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV."*





*LOL, TOO FUNNY BUBBA, TOO FUNNY*


*Block Grants (KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BUBS?)  Were THE Key to the Success of Welfare Reform*





*The nation’s governors, on the other hand, were worried that Congressional proposals would cut their federal assistance as the easier-to-train-and-employ caseload was reduced. 


This would limit their ability to assist more entrenched, multi-generational welfare recipients that were much harder to train or employ. *




*A compromise was reached whereby federal assistance to each state would be both capped and maintained at 1994 spending levels (for the most part) and the states were allowed to transfer portions of their federal welfare funds *to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) programs to provide
job training, child care and other welfare-related services. States were also given the flexibility of using federal welfare funds on any state program “reasonably calculated” to achieve the goals of the federal TANF program in providing welfare assistance while also reducing recipients’ dependence on welfare. In exchange, the states were required to maintain their own 1994 levels of state welfare spending (i.e. “maintenance of effort”) to ensure they used the savings from any decline in caseloads to enhance welfare recipient job training and other services and not merely to substitute federal welfare dollars for their
own state welfare funds.


http://www.theccwr.org/pdfs/block-grants-were-the-key.pdf


*How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant*

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



*Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF*


Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities












*A PROVEN LIAR ATTACKING ME?

AND THERE GOES YOUR BULLSH*T PREMISE BUBS!*


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)
> 
> You fukkn lying POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
Click to expand...



Without false premises,m distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have?


Yeah the "left" ALWAYS says just give us more money *shaking head*

AS CONServatives/GOP say Gov't functions badly, then get's elected and prove it!


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. *The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.   PJ O'Rourke
*


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...



Weird, the "christian" attacks me as a "troll" but I've proven YOU are a liar

IF you want ATTEMPT to refute ANY of my posts, that I generally back up with well thought out, reasoned AND credible sources, PLEASE do. Otherwise go fukk yourself!


----------



## sakinago

Andylusion said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume spending is a given.  You can't have a deficit without spending.  Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> 
> You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no trust fund," and there never has been.  All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately
> 
> It has been proven over and over again that it isn't.  Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.
> 
> The same goes for every government program.  So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP?  When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
Click to expand...



Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C? 

Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?

Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!

Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*


CDC Features - Medical Tourism


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
Click to expand...

how would that work at an HMO type of facility?  In my opinion, scale economy favors the State.  There is no reason to not build more cost effective buildings, for the Good of the State.


----------



## Andylusion

sakinago said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!
> 
> 
> You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol
> 
> So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!
> 
> Proven ACA unfunded? lol
> 
> *SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997*. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly* among partisan lines, *270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.
> 
> 
> State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The recent expansion of the State _Children's Health Insurance Program_ (S-_CHIP_) was _funded_ by an increase in federal excise _taxes_ on _tobacco_ ...
> 
> 
> Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
> 
> 
> ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)
> 
> Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA
> 
> 
> S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
Click to expand...


Are you sure that's not a function of cost?   I wager the cost to treating flu, cold, broken arm, is a tiny fraction of the cost of chemo.

The other motivation, is which policy ticks off the least number of people.   Health care that ticks off extremely vocal minorities, tends to have a higher priority, because that benefits the politicians.

That's why women in the UK military wait less time for a breast implant (a benefit the UK government gives women in the military), over breast cancer treatment.     Which one has more political clout?  Women in the military tend to yell and scream more.


----------



## sakinago

Andylusion said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure that's not a function of cost?   I wager the cost to treating flu, cold, broken arm, is a tiny fraction of the cost of chemo.
> 
> The other motivation, is which policy ticks off the least number of people.   Health care that ticks off extremely vocal minorities, tends to have a higher priority, because that benefits the politicians.
> 
> That's why women in the UK military wait less time for a breast implant (a benefit the UK government gives women in the military), over breast cancer treatment.     Which one has more political clout?  Women in the military tend to yell and scream more.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a huge difference in cost. But chemo is pretty much what American hospitals live off of, that's what makes them the most money for them by far. Not many say no to chemo, many say no to the sympothectamy that some surgeons push. Which is a separate issue, has more to do with the insurance system


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
Click to expand...

Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job. 

That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down
Click to expand...


Thanks, I agree, the US style H/C system that sucks 20% off the top, is a dinosaur, and despite the right demonizing UHC system, they can't even rig a poll to get support against it! lol


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, I agree, the US style H/C system that sucks 20% off the top, is a dinosaur, and despite the right demonizing UHC system, they can't even rig a poll to get support against it! lol
Click to expand...

Just added to my last post, read please. 

And yes it doesn't hold a pole...until you talk to patients who actually NEED specialized treatment. Many get specialized medicine that is unnecessary, but is that better than receiving a cane for your bad knee, or getting it replaced. Again not saying out system is perfect, but is socialized medicine any better when you reach the age of 78?


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, I agree, the US style H/C system that sucks 20% off the top, is a dinosaur, and despite the right demonizing UHC system, they can't even rig a poll to get support against it! lol
Click to expand...

There are things we can do to fix the system, you have to ask why parts of it don't work in the first place


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three.   This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll.   That's not an insult or exaggeration.    It's simply what he is.    If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread.  When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm just warning you for your own benefit.  You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore.   I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.
> 
> *That said.....*
> 
> The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function.   You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.
> 
> And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....
> 
> That's not how government sees it.  Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term.  They want their cushy government jobs.
> 
> Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.
> 
> 
> Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist.   But working for the Department of Labor cured him.    He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.
> 
> And see, that's how all government works.  Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station.   This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.
> 
> The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits.  The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".
> 
> Now how would we be losing millions of dollars?   We were not.   In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars.   If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money.  But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.
> 
> But....  the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs.   No recipients, no cushy government jobs.  So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.
> 
> *I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful*.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.
> 
> But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.
> 
> You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.
> 
> You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
Click to expand...



MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba


Vets don't like the VA? LOL


April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average

WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.

In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*



*News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*



*Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, I agree, the US style H/C system that sucks 20% off the top, is a dinosaur, and despite the right demonizing UHC system, they can't even rig a poll to get support against it! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just added to my last post, read please.
> 
> And yes it doesn't hold a pole...until you talk to patients who actually NEED specialized treatment. Many get specialized medicine that is unnecessary, but is that better than receiving a cane for your bad knee, or getting it replaced. Again not saying out system is perfect, but is socialized medicine any better when you reach the age of 78?
Click to expand...


Weird, EVERY nation with UHC system has a higher age of mortality?


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, I agree, the US style H/C system that sucks 20% off the top, is a dinosaur, and despite the right demonizing UHC system, they can't even rig a poll to get support against it! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are things we can do to fix the system, you have to ask why parts of it don't work in the first place
Click to expand...



Sure, unfortunately ALL the right wing/GOP does is want to privatize or kill programs, NEVER to actually fix them!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.
> 
> And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
Click to expand...

Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
Click to expand...



Anecdotes AND Bullsh*t. Shocking

Yeah, my dad was 22 years Army, very involved in the Legion/VFW since I  was about 10, been to the VA clinics in the Bay area, and KNOW from my experience of 40+ years, although not perfect, the Vets DO APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM! 

This is from someone as a kid going to VA systems after the damage of Nam with  paralyzed, legless, arm less, blind, etc Vets, yes, though not perfect, the Vets DO SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM, AND YES THEY WANT IT IMPROVED. Weird the GOP  will spend TRILLIONS on war, but run from taking care of our Vets!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes AND Bullsh*t. Shocking
> 
> Yeah, my dad was 22 years Army, very involved in the Legion/VFW since I  was about 10, been to the VA clinics in the Bay area, and KNOW from my experience of 40+ years, although not perfect, the Vets DO APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM!
> 
> This is from someone as a kid going to VA systems after the damage of Nam with  paralyzed, legless, arm less, blind, etc Vets, yes, though not perfect, the Vets DO SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM, AND YES THEY WANT IT IMPROVED. Weird the GOP  will spend TRILLIONS on war, but run from taking care of our Vets!
Click to expand...

But when VA has a system set up where it pays to literally not serve people for months and fudge the paper work on when they request appointments so that they still meet their "timeline" requirements, that's ok??? You don't see that in the private network bc it doesn't pay to not serve people, it pays to serve them, and get as many as you can through. That's utilitarianism at it's finest, it doesn't benefit us to serve abnormal cases, so don't give them a high priority


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes AND Bullsh*t. Shocking
> 
> Yeah, my dad was 22 years Army, very involved in the Legion/VFW since I  was about 10, been to the VA clinics in the Bay area, and KNOW from my experience of 40+ years, although not perfect, the Vets DO APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM!
> 
> This is from someone as a kid going to VA systems after the damage of Nam with  paralyzed, legless, arm less, blind, etc Vets, yes, though not perfect, the Vets DO SUPPORT THE VA SYSTEM, AND YES THEY WANT IT IMPROVED. Weird the GOP  will spend TRILLIONS on war, but run from taking care of our Vets!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But when VA has a system set up where it pays to literally not serve people for months and fudge the paper work on when they request appointments so that they still meet their "timeline" requirements, that's ok??? You don't see that in the private network bc it doesn't pay to not serve people, it pays to serve them, and get as many as you can through. That's utilitarianism at it's finest, it doesn't benefit us to serve abnormal cases, so don't give them a high priority
Click to expand...



Yeah, because the private markets NEVER commit fraud and people aren't harmed *shaking head*


Think Ford screwed people with their Pinto? How about asbestos? How about the billions every year in "private market" H/C fraud Bubs?

*Cancer doctor sentenced to 45 years for 'horrific' fraud*

He pumped poisonous chemotherapy drugs into patients for years, telling them they had cancer. They didn't.

He over-treated terminal cancer patients rather than letting them die peacefully. When he could profit from it, he also under-treated actual cancer

Cancer doctor sentenced to 45 years for 'horrific' fraud


*Glen Justice, OC Cancer Doctor Who Devised $1 Million Insurance Fraud Scam*

Glen Justice, OC Cancer Doctor Who Devised $1 Million Insurance Fraud Scam, 'Couldn't Say No' To Patients



*Pamela Porter goes to jail to speed trial in $22.5M McGill hospital kickback case*



Pamela Porter’s charges are in relation to an alleged $22.5-million kickback scheme over the McGill University Health Centre's new superhospital.

Arthur Porter is accused of accepting an $11.25-million bribe to award the contract for the new superhospital to the engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin. She's accused of helping him launder that money.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dr-arthur-porter-s-wife-calls-herself-pawn-in-fraud-case-1.2750548


lol


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead.  Total troll.
> 
> Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.   The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.
> 
> Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.
> 
> Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives.   The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.
> 
> So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.
> 
> Take healthcare.  You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor.    The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.
> 
> Which hospital get's additional funds?   The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER.  The one doing a good job, get's nothing.  And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.
> 
> Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.
> 
> So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible.  You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.
> 
> If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
Click to expand...



ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????


NOTHING HUH? lol


----------



## ninja007

to the OP- should the vast majority of blacks (libs) and white lazy libs be forced to get a job and pay taxes and get off welfare and drugs?


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
Click to expand...

I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?

And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because  the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
Click to expand...

Oh and there is no such thing as a paradise, wether it's by socialism or libertarianism...but the Swiss are doing undeniable better than their neighbors. And that's equality by opportunity, not equality by control.


----------



## danielpalos

yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.


That's the communist way dummy. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the communist way dummy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

don't be so silly, dear.  it cannot be the communist way since socialism requires social forms of worth, not necessarily capital forms of worth.  are you declaiming Capitalism in our Republic?


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
Click to expand...



Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*



SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS? 

Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?

Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, ONE POLL EVER from ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C?
> 
> Must be because of the "failure" of the socialized systems right Bubs?
> 
> Yep, the US system is the best for those WITH money!
> 
> Feb 23, 2015 - "_Medical tourism_" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. *It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care ...*
> 
> 
> CDC Features - Medical Tourism
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and there is no such thing as a paradise, wether it's by socialism or libertarianism...but the Swiss are doing undeniable better than their neighbors. And that's equality by opportunity, not equality by control.
Click to expand...


So NO, SWITZERLAND ISN'T A LIBERTARIAN STATE. Thanks for agreeing, using monopolies, protectionist policy, MOB RULE, mandatory military service, etc ISN'T libertarian!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and there is no such thing as a paradise, wether it's by socialism or libertarianism...but the Swiss are doing undeniable better than their neighbors. And that's equality by opportunity, not equality by control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, SWITZERLAND ISN'T A LIBERTARIAN STATE. Thanks for agreeing, using monopolies, protectionist policy, MOB RULE, mandatory military service, etc ISN'T libertarian!
Click to expand...

How is it mob rule when they are a republic? And yes mandatory military service is a libertarian idea IF YOUR A NEUTRAL  COUNTRY. Being neutral does not mean you never get attacked, which is why it is the responsibility of the citizens to be prepared to defend the country. And they can serve with confidence of not getting involved in any foreign wars. 

And I, again, never said they were perfect...just that they have more libertarian policies than their neighbors and are doing quite well for themselves


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes they would be in favor bc it's a utilitarian system, good of many outweighs the good of the few. So that poll would win every time...it also displays mob rule at it's finest. But those who need specialized treatment would vote for the us system hands down. And we do have socialized medicine in the US, so take a poll of the VA and see what system the veterans prefer...it's not going to be the VA. And what's the VA's excuse...we just need a few billion more dollars. So it literally pays in our system to be bad at your job.
> 
> That doesn't mean there are not any abuses in our system. Ask yourself why VRE is such a huge nosocomial infection in our hospitals, then look up PPI's and what they do, and why doctors prescribe them to essentially every patient who comes in the doors in an inpatient facility. Then look at how much PPI's cost per pill, and whose making the money off of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
Click to expand...

False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas? 

And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and there is no such thing as a paradise, wether it's by socialism or libertarianism...but the Swiss are doing undeniable better than their neighbors. And that's equality by opportunity, not equality by control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So NO, SWITZERLAND ISN'T A LIBERTARIAN STATE. Thanks for agreeing, using monopolies, protectionist policy, MOB RULE, mandatory military service, etc ISN'T libertarian!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it mob rule when they are a republic? And yes mandatory military service is a libertarian idea IF YOUR A NEUTRAL  COUNTRY. Being neutral does not mean you never get attacked, which is why it is the responsibility of the citizens to be prepared to defend the country. And they can serve with confidence of not getting involved in any foreign wars.
> 
> And I, again, never said they were perfect...just that they have more libertarian policies than their neighbors and are doing quite well for themselves
Click to expand...


Why mob rule? You posited it in the UHC debate Bubs, remember? lol

So FORCING someone into military service IS libertarian? Wow such individual freedom Bubs?


Yep, Switzerland LOVES that socialist policies alright!


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOB RULE? From the guy positing Switzerland  it's direct democracy as a libertarian wonderland? Buba, Bubba, Bubba
> 
> 
> Vets don't like the VA? LOL
> 
> 
> April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.
> 
> In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). *Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals.*
> 
> 
> 
> *News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs*
> 
> 
> 
> *Without the right wing memes, what do you have Bubs?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
Click to expand...


Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?

Of course not.


BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP

Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!

HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the communist way dummy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't be so silly, dear.  it cannot be the communist way since socialism requires social forms of worth, not necessarily capital forms of worth.  are you declaiming Capitalism in our Republic?
Click to expand...

Holy shit you are stupid.  No wonder you are  a progressive 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.



So... If the government showed up at your house today and they started taking 40% of all that you own... furniture, appliances, cars, toys, clothes, food, etc. You would be okay with that? Somehow, I don't think you would be. However, to a homeless person living in a cardboard box, you have more than you deserve. You're a rich fucker who needs to pay your fair share. 

Confiscating wealth is NOT capitalism, it is THEFT by TYRANNY!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... If the government showed up at your house today and they started taking 40% of all that you own... furniture, appliances, cars, toys, clothes, food, etc. You would be okay with that? Somehow, I don't think you would be. However, to a homeless person living in a cardboard box, you have more than you deserve. You're a rich fucker who needs to pay your fair share.
> 
> Confiscating wealth is NOT capitalism, it is THEFT by TYRANNY!
Click to expand...


Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the wealthiest should be taxed according to their capital wealth under any form of Capitalism.  It is the Capital Way.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the communist way dummy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't be so silly, dear.  it cannot be the communist way since socialism requires social forms of worth, not necessarily capital forms of worth.  are you declaiming Capitalism in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit you are stupid.  No wonder you are  a progressive
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

nothing but fallacy as any form of equal capital work for equal capital pay?  No wonder you are allegedly, conservative.


----------



## danielpalos

i look at it as a "market based metric" under our form of Capitalism; when the wealthiest declaim wartime tax rates for wartime social Powers delegated to our legislators.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?



What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue. 

If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
Click to expand...



REALLY? So Reagan/Dubya lowering tax rates brought in more revenues huh? PERHAPS TELL ECONOMISTS ABOUT THAT BUBS

There IS a left AND right to Laffer's curve you know?


*The top U.S. income tax rate is currently well below best estimates of the optimal rate for revenue maximization.*
*Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent*. This is nearly _twice_ the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.2 This would mean a top _statutory _income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.
http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/


PERCENT OF GDP, REVENUES (INCOME/CORP) WERE HIGHEST WHEN WE HAD HIGHER RATES


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

"Paul Krugman shows that the Laffer Curve is simply wrong. *The facts are that cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes tend to provide more money for the real economy as their money is required for "survival", whereas cutting taxes for the wealthy tends to provide more money for speculation as their money is discretionary.* The problem with this is that our economy is matured and has already moved into financialization as production has failed to provide the returns on investment that the wealthy demand. *Thus we tend toward developing bubbles rather than real growth as we have also moved production off-shore to increase profit due to lower labor costs.*

*The Laffer Curve has more to do with growing wealth of the wealthy than real growth for the economy overall.* Therefore, growth in tax revenue due to tax cuts on the wealthy are due more to an increase in their wealth from speculation whereas when due to cuts for the middle and lower classes tend to be from actual business transactions."


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
Click to expand...



"The Laffer curve per se is self-evident. At some point higher tax rates will inhibit GDP enough to start reducing total tax revenue, and at some point lowering tax rates will also reduce total tax revenue.

*Conclusion: the ideal tax rate is somewhere between 0% and 100%


That part is true...and, by itself, meaningless until you determine where the actual sweet spot is on the curve.*




*The lie and the fraud is where they actually peg the upper tax rate. *The Laffer crew gives this long winded pedantic explanation of the basic curve theory and then goes ahead and sets the tax rates where they damn well please and suppress any evidence of the actual revenue consequences.

*They wave the curve theory around and then they switch it with an arbitrary set of tax rates with no relation to the real sweet spot whatsoever.*

The Lafter curve explain-and-switch is faster than the eye."





*The top U.S. income tax rate is currently well below best estimates of the optimal rate for revenue maximization.*



*Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent.* This is nearly _twice_ the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.2 This would mean a top _statutory _income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.


*Tax reform that broadens the tax base and minimizes tax avoidance opportunities actually increases the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate.* This means that base-broadening tax reform and higher marginal rates should be seen as complements, not substitutes.

A review of the economic research on the effects of raising ordinary income tax rates: Higher revenue, unchanged growth, and uncertain but potentially large reductions in the growth of inequality | Economic Policy Institute

*HOW WEIRD, LOOK AT THOSE OLD EFFECTIVE RATES:*


----------



## dblack

I think the tax code should be used as a way to scapegoat and punish people who fall out of favor with the majority.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The Laffer curve per se is self-evident. At some point higher tax rates will inhibit GDP enough to start reducing total tax revenue, and at some point lowering tax rates will also reduce total tax revenue.
> 
> *Conclusion: the ideal tax rate is somewhere between 0% and 100%
> 
> 
> That part is true...and, by itself, meaningless until you determine where the actual sweet spot is on the curve.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The lie and the fraud is where they actually peg the upper tax rate. *The Laffer crew gives this long winded pedantic explanation of the basic curve theory and then goes ahead and sets the tax rates where they damn well please and suppress any evidence of the actual revenue consequences.
> 
> *They wave the curve theory around and then they switch it with an arbitrary set of tax rates with no relation to the real sweet spot whatsoever.*
> 
> The Lafter curve explain-and-switch is faster than the eye."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The top U.S. income tax rate is currently well below best estimates of the optimal rate for revenue maximization.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent.* This is nearly _twice_ the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.2 This would mean a top _statutory _income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.
> 
> 
> *Tax reform that broadens the tax base and minimizes tax avoidance opportunities actually increases the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate.* This means that base-broadening tax reform and higher marginal rates should be seen as complements, not substitutes.
> 
> A review of the economic research on the effects of raising ordinary income tax rates: Higher revenue, unchanged growth, and uncertain but potentially large reductions in the growth of inequality | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> *HOW WEIRD, LOOK AT THOSE OLD EFFECTIVE RATES:*
Click to expand...




 

My chart clearly shows where our problem lies. 
...We need to decrease the level of stupid!


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> I think the tax code should be used as a way to scapegoat and punish people who fall out of favor with the majority.



Or as I posit, get max revenues from those Chinese/Mexico "job creators" IF they don't want to hire in the USA


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The Laffer curve per se is self-evident. At some point higher tax rates will inhibit GDP enough to start reducing total tax revenue, and at some point lowering tax rates will also reduce total tax revenue.
> 
> *Conclusion: the ideal tax rate is somewhere between 0% and 100%
> 
> 
> That part is true...and, by itself, meaningless until you determine where the actual sweet spot is on the curve.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The lie and the fraud is where they actually peg the upper tax rate. *The Laffer crew gives this long winded pedantic explanation of the basic curve theory and then goes ahead and sets the tax rates where they damn well please and suppress any evidence of the actual revenue consequences.
> 
> *They wave the curve theory around and then they switch it with an arbitrary set of tax rates with no relation to the real sweet spot whatsoever.*
> 
> The Lafter curve explain-and-switch is faster than the eye."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The top U.S. income tax rate is currently well below best estimates of the optimal rate for revenue maximization.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent.* This is nearly _twice_ the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.2 This would mean a top _statutory _income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.
> 
> 
> *Tax reform that broadens the tax base and minimizes tax avoidance opportunities actually increases the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate.* This means that base-broadening tax reform and higher marginal rates should be seen as complements, not substitutes.
> 
> A review of the economic research on the effects of raising ordinary income tax rates: Higher revenue, unchanged growth, and uncertain but potentially large reductions in the growth of inequality | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> *HOW WEIRD, LOOK AT THOSE OLD EFFECTIVE RATES:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 49589
> 
> My chart clearly shows where our problem lies.
> ...We need to decrease the level of stupid!
Click to expand...


Got it, YOU don't like scientific studies and data points. I'm shocked that a Randian cultist wouldn't like that?? lol


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Or as I posit, get max revenues from those Chinese/Mexico "job creators" IF they don't want to hire in the USA



But you can't because you're not a King. These companies are not your subjects. They are in a free country where they have the liberty to locate their HQ elsewhere, in a country that doesn't mind them outsourcing to China and Mexico. You can certainly see the problem with trying to tax revenue from a company that is no longer in the United States. 

Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. 

I've also got another great idea... Declare a tax moratorium on repatriated wealth brought back to the US to expand business and create new jobs. For 10 years, there would be no taxation on any money used for this purpose coming from US holdings abroad.  My idea would bring back billions of dollars and directly inject it into the economy in the form of new jobs... good paying real jobs.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as I posit, get max revenues from those Chinese/Mexico "job creators" IF they don't want to hire in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't because you're not a King. These companies are not your subjects. They are in a free country where they have the liberty to locate their HQ elsewhere, in a country that doesn't mind them outsourcing to China and Mexico. You can certainly see the problem with trying to tax revenue from a company that is no longer in the United States.
> 
> Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico.
> 
> I've also got another great idea... Declare a tax moratorium on repatriated wealth brought back to the US to expand business and create new jobs. For 10 years, there would be no taxation on any money used for this purpose coming from US holdings abroad.  My idea would bring back billions of dollars and directly inject it into the economy in the form of new jobs... good paying real jobs.
Click to expand...



THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!



ARE CORPS/"JOB CREATORS" HURTING FOR CAPITAL??? HINT THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THEY WOULD NEED TO BRING IT BACK RIGHT? BUT SORRY, DUBYA BEAT YOU TOO IT, HUGE FAILURE

*Senate report says repatriation tax holiday failed to create jobs in US*

in fact, the corporations who took most advantage of the holiday* enacted in 2004 shed jobs in the ensuing years and did not increase their rate of spending on research and development.*


On the flip side, the study found those *corporations also appear to have used the holiday for stock buybacks and to boost executive pay, which was not allowed under the legislation authorizing the holiday.*

Senate report says repatriation tax holiday failed to create jobs in US


EVEN RIGHT WING HERITAGE SAYS YOU ARE WRONG BUBS

*A Repatriation Holiday Would Not Create Jobs*


*Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation*


*Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,* they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.

The 2004 holiday was supposed to prevent them from doing these things, but money is fungible, so there was no realistic way to stop it.

A Repatriation Holiday Would Not Create Jobs


*DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF GETTING SPANKED BECAUSE OF YOUR RANDIAN FETISH? *


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
Click to expand...


If I remember right, when the 90% income tax was put in place, there was only one single family in the entire country that was even in the 90% income bracket.   That is to say, it didn't generate much revenue at all.  

People talk about the high-tax era in this country as if the government was awash with cash.  Last I checked they ran a deficit.  It didn't work better then, than it would today.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!



Which is essentially what I just said. 

_*Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. *_


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, it worked pretty well 1932-1980, we still had rich right? You know a HEAVY progressive tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What worked pretty well?  Fucking 90% income tax rates? No... those didn't work! You see, when incomes are taxed that high, very few earn incomes that big. The point is, if no one is earning an income in that bracket, you can raise it to 500%... it's not going to generate revenue.
> 
> If you raise top marginal rates back up to 90% or even 70%... the effect will be fewer incomes in that bracket. The result will be less revenue. Why do you idiotically believe people are just going to sit there and have government confiscate 70-90% of their incomes? Ain't gunna happen, buddy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I remember right, when the 90% income tax was put in place, there was only one single family in the entire country that was even in the 90% income bracket.   That is to say, it didn't generate much revenue at all.
> 
> People talk about the high-tax era in this country as if the government was awash with cash.  Last I checked they ran a deficit.  It didn't work better then, than it would today.
Click to expand...


YOU MEAN WHEN TO HIT THE 90% IN THE 1930'S, YOU NEEDED 3,000,000+ INCOME? How many families made that? lol

The US has run a deficit almost every year, doesn't mean you don't get more revenues from higher EFFECTIVE tax rates

I MIGHT HAVE EA FUKKN STROKE IF ONE OF YOU RIGHT WINGERS WAS EVER HONEST


LAFFER CURVE HAS A LEFT AND RIGHT AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE IN THE US EVER!

SOMEONE PAID A BIG EFFECTIVE RATES TILL REAGANOMICS


*“The progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s.” *As Figure 1 shows, since 1960, average federal tax rates for middle-income households have increased and then declined modestly.  Over the same period, high-income households saw sharp drops in their federal tax rates.

Moreover, the drops were largest for the very highest-income households.  The average tax rate declined by a larger amount for households in the top one _hundredth_ of 1 percent of the income scale (where incomes in 2004 averaged about $15 million) than for households in the top _tenth_ of 1 percent (where incomes averaged above $3.7 million) or for households in the top 1 percent (where incomes averaged about $850,000).









*Over the same period in which the progressivity of the tax system declined, pre-tax income inequality grew significantly (see Figure 2).  *In an earlier study that examined the distribution of income since 1913, Piketty and Saez showed that the concentration of pre-tax income has increased substantially since the 1970s, especially at the very top of the income spectrum








the share of the nation’s total income going to the top 1 percent of households jumped from* 8.4 percent in 1970 to 19.3 percent in 2005*, an increase of 10.8 percentage points.  *In 2005 terms, that increase works out to about $550,000 more in income per household for those in the top 1 percent.*  In other words, households in this income group received an average of about $550,000 more in income in 2005 than they would have if the group’s share of national had remained constant since 1970.


*Over the same period in which high-income households benefited the most from changes in the distribution of pre-tax income, they also benefited the most from changes in effective federal tax rates.*  In *1970, the top 1 percent of households paid an average of 47 percent of their income in federal taxes*; under 2004 law, Piketty and Saez estimate they faced an* average tax rate of just 30 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points*




CBO Provides New Evidence That the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Have Only Modest Economic Effects And Do Not Pay For Themselves | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is essentially what I just said.
> 
> _*Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. *_
Click to expand...


I completely and entirely disagree.   That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.

If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.

The result will be economic devastation.  Bad plan.  Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.

If both of you would deny that, then explain protectionist India in the 50s,60s,70s,80s, verses non-protectionist India today?

Protectionist N.Korea, verses Free-Trade S.Korea?    Hong Kong, vs Protectionist pre-78 China?    Singapore Free-Trade vs Venezuela Protectionism?    Jamaica protectionism, vs Barbados free-trade?

What protectionist country would you point to as a successful example?   Japan's lost decade and a half?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is essentially what I just said.
> 
> _*Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. *_
Click to expand...


GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID

FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!! GREAT LET THEM DO IT! IF HOWEVER THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR GOODS WITH THE US, WE SURE AS FUKK CAN TAX THEM WHAT WE WANT AND AS NOTED, WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE LAFFER CURVE!

CONservatives/GOP have US on "free trade' haven't YOU noticed Bubs?  (Yep, Dems voted against EVERY "free trade" agreement) 

THE ONLY WAY TO FIX IT WITHOUT HAVING A TRADE WAR, IS TO TAX THOSE WHO HAVE BENIFFITED THE MOST THE PAST 35 YEARS, THOSE "JOB CREATORS" AND CORPS!!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation



Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears? 

*



			Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
		
Click to expand...

*


> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.



Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders. 

It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive. 

If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is essentially what I just said.
> 
> _*Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely and entirely disagree.   That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.
> 
> If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.
> 
> The result will be economic devastation.  Bad plan.  Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.
Click to expand...



As usual you wingnutters leave out that entire roaring 20's that Harding/Coolidge cheered on that created the credit BUBBLE that bust Oct 1929 (well housing busts in Cali, Florida and NY happened in 1927!)

Weird how EVERY TIME we have those "free marketeer" guys in, the US economy takes a dump. Harding/Coolidge's great depression, Ronnie's S&L crisis then Dubya's subprime bubble


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP

Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol

How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEY can do whatever the fukk they want, but if they want to bring products into the US, we sure as fuk can tax them what we want!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is essentially what I just said.
> 
> _*Now what we CAN do and SHOULD do, is apply heavy tariffs on the goods they have manufactured elsewhere on the cheap, and then try to export back in to our market. That would definitely discourage a lot of outsourcing, especially to Mexico. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely and entirely disagree.   That is exactly what we did in the late 1920s, early 1930s, and the result was the Great Depression.
> 
> If you put tariffs on stuff that's imported, then so will those countries on our goods.
> 
> The result will be economic devastation.  Bad plan.  Every country that has attempted to follow a protectionist plan, has had economic ruin as the result.
> 
> If both of you would deny that, then explain protectionist India in the 50s,60s,70s,80s, verses non-protectionist India today?
> 
> Protectionist N.Korea, verses Free-Trade S.Korea?    Hong Kong, vs Protectionist pre-78 China?    Singapore Free-Trade vs Venezuela Protectionism?    Jamaica protectionism, vs Barbados free-trade?
> 
> What protectionist country would you point to as a successful example?   Japan's lost decade and a half?
Click to expand...


US 1791-1970'S WAS A HEAVY PROTECTIONIST NATION!

Comparing closed society and claiming them to be protectionists societies? lol


----------



## Dad2three

NO ONES ATTEMPTED TO EVEN TOUCH THE "SWEET SPOT" OF TAXATION? Weird

Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%*, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. *Kennedy explicitly called for a top rate of 65 percent, but added that it should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions weren't phased out at the top of the income scale


*Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent*

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

*The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is “somewhere between 85 and 90 percent,”


MARGINAL RATE!!






Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

*


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID
> 
> FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!



No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today. 

I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop. 

It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm skeptical as well.   It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.

But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?

The share holders, own the company.  They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.

Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow.   Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".

Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos.   That's not a negative.   Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.

And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well.   In fact, everyone benefited.   And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.

So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs.   That idea is far-fetched in my mind.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID
> 
> FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today.
> 
> I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop.
> 
> It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?
Click to expand...


Wow your ability to be dishonest just awes me Bubs


Free and open society BUT you want tariffs over taxation? lol


I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!! 


US CAN TAX ANY PROFIT THEY WANT YOU KNOW, NO TRADE WAR, JUST TAX POLICY, SIMPLE  not the anti Randian stuff YOU are proposing (weirdly) by starting a trade war!!!


I'll note again, WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE WRONG SIDE  OF THE CURVE OF LAFFERS LAW!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP
> 
> Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol
> 
> How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?
Click to expand...


Money is fungible?  ...You should avoid big words you don't understand. 

Bush's 2-year "tax holiday" was as stupid and short-sighted as his "across the board tax cuts." The problem is, I seem to be getting credited with the policies of Bush who was a moron when it came to Reagan economics... and that goes for all three Bushes. 

My idea is completely different because there would be restrictions on the repatriated wealth. It would have to be used to create real jobs. No loopholes or get-arounds, no 'special deals' for crony corporatists.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well.   It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> The share holders, own the company.  They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.
> 
> Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow.   Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".
> 
> Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos.   That's not a negative.   Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.
> 
> And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well.   In fact, everyone benefited.   And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.
> 
> So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs.   That idea is far-fetched in my mind.
Click to expand...


Most gains the past 35 years in Vegas East went to Corp officers (who game the system to push up stock prices to get rewarded and cash out)  and the 1/10th of 1% of US who receive over half of ALL dividends/cap gains

Good for Amazon? Oh that comp that has never made a profit or paid a dividend? Hmm Shareholders? Until it pops


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!



And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, ten years is better than the 2 year failure under Dubya/GOP
> 
> Don't understand money is fungible huh Bubs? lol
> 
> How does the Randian fetishist assume that we can work this "job creator" BS again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is fungible?  ...You should avoid big words you don't understand.
> 
> Bush's 2-year "tax holiday" was as stupid and short-sighted as his "across the board tax cuts." The problem is, I seem to be getting credited with the policies of Bush who was a moron when it came to Reagan economics... and that goes for all three Bushes.
> 
> My idea is completely different because there would be restrictions on the repatriated wealth. It would have to be used to create real jobs. No loopholes or get-arounds, no 'special deals' for crony corporatists.
Click to expand...


Don't understand fungible huh Bubs?

Restrictions? SUCH AS? lol


How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?

Reagan economics? Oh right gut taxes for the richest, increase taxes 11 times on the workers, including a tax that created $3+ trillion the next 30 years to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich (but is now due!)? Average worker paid a higher effective tax rate in 1989 than 1981, AS RONNIE TRIPLED THE DEBT AND GUTTED REVENUES!


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repatriation Holiday Would Not Increase Investment or Job Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about a holiday. I said a 10-year moratorium... you got peanut butter in your ears?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Since the businesses did not need the overseas cash to invest domestically,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> they brought it home and used it to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back shares, or acquire other businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my moratorium would ONLY apply to wealth brought back and used to create new jobs. Not to buy other businesses, not to buy back shares, not to pay dividends to shareholders.
> 
> It's not a matter of them "hurting for capital." It's a matter of incentive.
> 
> If it doesn't work, so what? What are we losing? We need jobs... a shit ton of jobs! Not government jobs... not infrastructure jobs... not mythical shovel ready jobs... not $15 hr. burger flipper jobs--- But REAL actual new jobs that pay a decent wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well.   It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> The share holders, own the company.  They are entitle to a share of the profit, just as much as you are entitled to use your car as you see fit, when you own it.
> 
> Moreover, acquiring another businesses is how large companies grow.   Massive companies typically don't say "we're going to expand here", and go find a building, and find some guy to run it, and say "go make something".
> 
> Typically when Amazon wants to grow their business, they buy out Zappos.   That's not a negative.   Zappos now has hundreds more employees than they did before, and is larger than they had ever planned to be.
> 
> And by the way, this resulted in huge benefits for the shareholders as well.   In fact, everyone benefited.   And honestly if the shareholders did not benefit from it, then it would not have happened.
> 
> So I am skeptical of any theory that says we can put in place some policy that doesn't do X, and Y, and Z, but only creates jobs.   That idea is far-fetched in my mind.
Click to expand...


Why not a Corp tax? Don't they get something for being a Corp? Why ANOTHER break for the "job creators"?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!
Click to expand...


REALLY? SERIOUSLY BUBS, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TAXES WORK? REALLY?

I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHERE THEY ARE H/Q, we can and do tax PROFITS from US, WE CAN CHANGE TAX LAWS TO GET RID OF CORP (APPLE, GOOGLE, MICRSFT, ETC) LOOPHOLES WHO CREATE "MONEY" IN IRELAND, LOL


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID
> 
> FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today.
> 
> I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop.
> 
> It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?
Click to expand...


Last year was a record year in manufacturing.   We don't need to bring it back, it's already here.

The problem is, manufacturing jobs are gone, and that's because wages are high enough, that automation is practical.  And as the wages continue to climb, replacement with automation because more and more cost effective.

No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that.     If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages.  It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.

The only way that thousands or millions of people are going to have manufacturing jobs, and the only way they are going to make middle class incomes do that..... is if we lower the cost of labor, and the standard of living drops to the level of the 1950s.

Since neither are going to happen, no amount of tariffs is going to change anything.  You are asking for the impossible.




 

2014 was a record year in exports.  I'm not sure what you are talking about.

And honestly, again if you put in place tariffs, you are going to kill our exports.  That's a self defeating idea.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOT IT, AS USUAL YOU'LL IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT DEBUNKED YOUR BS PREMISES AND THEN SAY IT'S "ESSENTIALLY" WHAT YOU SAID
> 
> FUKK IT IS. YOU SAID THEY COULD MOVE THEIR CORPS AND JOBS OUT OF THE US!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't ignore anything. We agreed on something and Andylusion disagrees with me. As disheartening as that is to me, I still believe we need to implement heavy tariffs on goods from China and Mexico in order to bring back the manufacturing sector in the US. I don't care that it didn't work in the 20s and 30s, we weren't a consumerist nation like we are today. We depended much more on our exports which are virtually non-existent today.
> 
> I also think we need to impose these tariffs on goods produced by US companies abroad, exploiting cheap labor and then exploiting our trade agreements to "import" their goods back into this country where they make a huge profit at the expense of American workers. That shit needs to stop.
> 
> It was not ME who said they could move their jobs. I was opposed to NAFTA and WTO. Still... We live in a free and open society where companies have the right to move wherever the hell they want to move... we can't keep them here in the US like Chairman Mao. You want to build a Great Wall to keep them from leaving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last year was a record year in manufacturing.   We don't need to bring it back, it's already here.
> 
> The problem is, manufacturing jobs are gone, and that's because wages are high enough, that automation is practical.  And as the wages continue to climb, replacement with automation because more and more cost effective.
> 
> No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that.     If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages.  It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.
> 
> The only way that thousands or millions of people are going to have manufacturing jobs, and the only way they are going to make middle class incomes do that..... is if we lower the cost of labor, and the standard of living drops to the level of the 1950s.
> 
> Since neither are going to happen, no amount of tariffs is going to change anything.  You are asking for the impossible.
> 
> View attachment 49595
> 
> 2014 was a record year in exports.  I'm not sure what you are talking about.
> 
> And honestly, again if you put in place tariffs, you are going to kill our exports.  That's a self defeating idea.
Click to expand...



NOT a record year on manufacturing, just turned around to head back to where we were in the early 1980's, since the early 2000's the US was on downward spiral

Record exports? DONE BY RECORD ENERGY (gas, oil, coal)  AND NOT ADJUSTED


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?



I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start. 

How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy. 

And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?



Because the $500 million they bring back from offshore *has to be used to create new jobs...* not operate the company or pay the utility bills.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? SERIOUSLY BUBS, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TAXES WORK? REALLY?
> 
> I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHERE THEY ARE H/Q, we can and do tax PROFITS from US, WE CAN CHANGE TAX LAWS TO GET RID OF CORP (APPLE, GOOGLE, MICRSFT, ETC) LOOPHOLES WHO CREATE "MONEY" IN IRELAND, LOL
Click to expand...


No, you don't seem to understand jurisdiction. The IRS has no authority over a company located in Ireland. NONE. We can't tax them. Doesn't matter that they were once a US company. We can't tax their profits, they don't have to tell us about their profits, nothing.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
Click to expand...



Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work

"Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year


EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!  

EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
Click to expand...


So in my Amazon example, Amazon bought out Zappos.  Which created zero jobs at a Amazon.  Tons of profit though.

Now as we both know, the economy is not a fixed game.  You can invest in a business, and have it fail.

Zappos may have failed after being bought out.  Instead they grew.

You don't know in the future what will create jobs and what will not.

My company recently invest hundreds of thousands into a new product.  So far, it has created zero jobs.  In fact, we've cut some people.     It's hard to say whether this will create jobs in the future, or not.

Based on this...  like I said... how will you enforce this tax-free investment creates jobs?     What company is going to risk an IRS audit, to bring back money that 'must create jobs', when they don't know for sure if any investment will?

Accounting?   Reporting?  Those can be manipulated, and you know it.    The future success or failure of an investment, can not be determined until it happens.

Additionally, some investment is done to prevent the loss of jobs.   A factory that is being out done by another that has more advanced methods of production, may need million of dollars in investment.   The options are, no investment and factory closes, or tons of investment and the factory remains open.   That investment may even make fewer workers necessary.

So here, investment may result in the loss of jobs, for the benefit of not losing EVERY job.     How would your tax plan deal with that?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the $500 million they bring back from offshore *has to be used to create new jobs...* not operate the company or pay the utility bills.
Click to expand...


Cool, HOW? Please be specific, something that doesn't sound like Moa's plan Bubs??? You know something that we could LEGALLY DO? Oops


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in my Amazon example, Amazon bought out Zappos.  Which created zero jobs at a Amazon.  Tons of profit though.
> 
> Now as we both know, the economy is not a fixed game.  You can invest in a business, and have it fail.
> 
> Zappos may have failed after being bought out.  Instead they grew.
> 
> You don't know in the future what will create jobs and what will not.
> 
> My company recently invest hundreds of thousands into a new product.  So far, it has created zero jobs.  In fact, we've cut some people.     It's hard to say whether this will create jobs in the future, or not.
> 
> Based on this...  like I said... how will you enforce this tax-free investment creates jobs?     What company is going to risk an IRS audit, to bring back money that 'must create jobs', when they don't know for sure if any investment will?
> 
> Accounting?   Reporting?  Those can be manipulated, and you know it.    The future success or failure of an investment, and be determined until it happens.
> 
> Additionally, some investment is done to prevent the loss of jobs.   A factory that is being out done by another that has more advanced methods of production, may need million of dollars in investment.   The options are, no investment and factory closes, or tons of investment and the factory remains open.   That investment may even make fewer workers necessary.
> 
> So here, investment may result in the loss of jobs, for the benefit of not losing EVERY job.     How would your tax plan deal with that?
Click to expand...



"So in my Amazon example, Amazon bought out Zappos. Which created zero jobs at a Amazon. Tons of profit though."

Wheres the profit?


$1.2 billion sale price with a $21 million profit last year right? On over a billion in sales?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? SERIOUSLY BUBS, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TAXES WORK? REALLY?
> 
> I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHERE THEY ARE H/Q, we can and do tax PROFITS from US, WE CAN CHANGE TAX LAWS TO GET RID OF CORP (APPLE, GOOGLE, MICRSFT, ETC) LOOPHOLES WHO CREATE "MONEY" IN IRELAND, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to understand jurisdiction. The IRS has no authority over a company located in Ireland. NONE. We can't tax them. Doesn't matter that they were once a US company. We can't tax their profits, they don't have to tell us about their profits, nothing.
Click to expand...



lol, Bubba, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN
*
The United States asserts jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations only if they are engaged in business in the United States* or receive income from sources within the United States. Foreign corporations that are engaged in a trade or business in the United States are subject to net-basis income tax under §882 on any of their income that is “effectively connected” with that business.



U.S. Income Taxation of Foreign Corporations (Portfolio 908)


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that. If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages. It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.



I don't want to prevent Apple from importing iPhones. I want them to have the iPhones made in America by American workers. The tariff makes it more expensive for them to do what they are doing, and at the same time, we are offering incentives to get them to do something else. They're smart cookies... they'll do what is most profitable. It may be that it's still more profitable for them to have them made overseas and just pay the tariffs... that means the iPhone will be more expensive. Perhaps that leads the way for some entrepreneurial American to invent a phone that is comparable and produce it here with American workers. 

The automation thing is a red herring. We're going to have automation and advancement in technology no matter what we do. It's an inevitable thing which doesn't care one way or another about our policies. Does it eliminate jobs? Sure it does.. it's been doing it for 70k years.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? SERIOUSLY BUBS, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TAXES WORK? REALLY?
> 
> I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHERE THEY ARE H/Q, we can and do tax PROFITS from US, WE CAN CHANGE TAX LAWS TO GET RID OF CORP (APPLE, GOOGLE, MICRSFT, ETC) LOOPHOLES WHO CREATE "MONEY" IN IRELAND, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to understand jurisdiction. The IRS has no authority over a company located in Ireland. NONE. We can't tax them. Doesn't matter that they were once a US company. We can't tax their profits, they don't have to tell us about their profits, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Bubba, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN
> *
> The United States asserts jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations only if they are engaged in business in the United States* or receive income from sources within the United States. Foreign corporations that are engaged in a trade or business in the United States are subject to net-basis income tax under §882 on any of their income that is “effectively connected” with that business.
> 
> U.S. Income Taxation of Foreign Corporations (Portfolio 908)
Click to expand...


Right... which has diddly-squat to do with what I said.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work
> 
> "Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!
> 
> EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!
Click to expand...


I know how tax rates work, that's why I'm cleaning your clock here. IF I bring $1 million to the US from my foreign bank, the IRS claims $390k before I ever see my money. As long as my money stays there and doesn't come here, the IRS doesn't and can't tax it. It's not counted as "earned income" because it hasn't been claimed or received as income in the US. But when I bring it here, it becomes "earned income" and taxed accordingly.  

I'm saying we should suspend that taxation for 10 years on money brought in to create jobs.


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that. If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages. It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to prevent Apple from importing iPhones. I want them to have the iPhones made in America by American workers. The tariff makes it more expensive for them to do what they are doing, and at the same time, we are offering incentives to get them to do something else. They're smart cookies... they'll do what is most profitable. It may be that it's still more profitable for them to have them made overseas and just pay the tariffs... that means the iPhone will be more expensive. Perhaps that leads the way for some entrepreneurial American to invent a phone that is comparable and produce it here with American workers.
> 
> The automation thing is a red herring. We're going to have automation and advancement in technology no matter what we do. It's an inevitable thing which doesn't care one way or another about our policies. Does it eliminate jobs? Sure it does.. it's been doing it for 70k years.
Click to expand...


Not true.   The entire reason Apple has Iphones built in China today, is explicitly because it is not automated.

If labor costs fell in the US, automation would decrease.   You have no idea how expensive automation is.   One small broken part in one place, causes the entire production line to fail.  That doesn't happen with people.   When one person is sick, you just move another person to that spot in the line, and keep going.   You can move human capital around at will.

Machines, you can't do that.  You have to redesign the entire system, when something doesn't fit.

At my company, we've investigated automating several times.  It simply isn't fiscally practical for us.   So the options are, outsource or go out of business.

If you place tariffs on the parts we import to make our product, we simply won't be in business anymore.   Instead of creating jobs, you'll kill off jobs.

Similarly, with Apple, you will never get Americans making Iphones here in the US.  It will never happen.  Not unless you lower labor costs, less regulations, lower wages.

Short of that, yes Apple is smart.  They'll make a completely automated factory, that will produce Iphones with 5 employees pushing the start button.   The result will be that US Iphones will be expensive, while international Iphones will be cheap.   Fewer Americans will own them, while few jobs are created.

Lots of negatives, zero positives.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WANT TO GO BACK WHERE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO NOT CREATE JOBS IN THE US, YOU TAX THE FUK OUT OF THEM, LIKE THE DEMS PROPOSED ALREADY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, hard head... they leave the country and open their HQ in Belize!  You can't tax companies in Belize, only Belize can... and guess what? They LIKE the companies bringing their wealth to Belize, they don't wanna tax them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? SERIOUSLY BUBS, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TAXES WORK? REALLY?
> 
> I DON'T GIVE A FUK WHERE THEY ARE H/Q, we can and do tax PROFITS from US, WE CAN CHANGE TAX LAWS TO GET RID OF CORP (APPLE, GOOGLE, MICRSFT, ETC) LOOPHOLES WHO CREATE "MONEY" IN IRELAND, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to understand jurisdiction. The IRS has no authority over a company located in Ireland. NONE. We can't tax them. Doesn't matter that they were once a US company. We can't tax their profits, they don't have to tell us about their profits, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Bubba, GROW A FUKKN BRAIN
> *
> The United States asserts jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations only if they are engaged in business in the United States* or receive income from sources within the United States. Foreign corporations that are engaged in a trade or business in the United States are subject to net-basis income tax under §882 on any of their income that is “effectively connected” with that business.
> 
> U.S. Income Taxation of Foreign Corporations (Portfolio 908)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... which has diddly-squat to do with what I said.
Click to expand...



Listen YOU dishonest POS, I said from the start, MOVE THE FUK OUT OF THE US, BUT IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET, EXPECT TO PAY THE GAWDDAM TAXES HERE, YOUR PREMISE WAS THEY COULD MOVE AND EVADE THEM! 



Without you bullshit premises, what else you got Bubs? You sure as fuk were slapped down on your BS premise that higher tax rates would discourage workers, you were slapped down on your BS trade war. You WERE slapped down on your "repatriation" holiday. What else you got?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the $500 million they bring back from offshore *has to be used to create new jobs...* not operate the company or pay the utility bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, HOW? Please be specific, something that doesn't sound like Moa's plan Bubs??? You know something that we could LEGALLY DO? Oops
Click to expand...


Well like I said to Andy, it's a matter of reporting and accounting. 

Okay... So I just created a new company and hired 100 people. Their total salary and benefits for 2016 come to $5 million. I repatriated $5 million from my account in Belize. This money is not taxed because I can show where I paid 100 new employees $5 million.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work
> 
> "Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!
> 
> EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how tax rates work, that's why I'm cleaning your clock here. IF I bring $1 million to the US from my foreign bank, the IRS claims $390k before I ever see my money. As long as my money stays there and doesn't come here, the IRS doesn't and can't tax it. It's not counted as "earned income" because it hasn't been claimed or received as income in the US. But when I bring it here, it becomes "earned income" and taxed accordingly.
> 
> I'm saying we should suspend that taxation for 10 years on money brought in to create jobs.
Click to expand...



Cleaning my clock? lol

REALLY? 39% HUH? Ever won at Vegas? 28%


NO IT'S NOT EARNED INCOME YOU DUMBFUK, IT'S HOW YOU MADE IT, STOCKS OR CAP GAINS? GAWD YOUR ARE A REALLY STUPID PERSON AREN'T YOU?




*Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding.*   You also may be responsible as a payer for reporting on Form 1099 payments made to a U.S. person. You must withhold 28% (backup withholding rate) from a reportable payment made to a U.S. person that is subject to Form 1099 reporting if any of the following apply.

Publication 515 (2015), Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities


WOW, JUST LIKE VEGAS??/ LOL


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work
> 
> "Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!
> 
> EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how tax rates work, that's why I'm cleaning your clock here. IF I bring $1 million to the US from my foreign bank, the IRS claims $390k before I ever see my money. As long as my money stays there and doesn't come here, the IRS doesn't and can't tax it. It's not counted as "earned income" because it hasn't been claimed or received as income in the US. But when I bring it here, it becomes "earned income" and taxed accordingly.
> 
> I'm saying we should suspend that taxation for 10 years on money brought in to create jobs.
Click to expand...


Sorry, ARE YOU CLAIMING AS A US CITIZEN, YOU CAN HOLD MONEY OFFSHORE AND NOT PAY TAXES ON IT? Really? LMAOROG

Cleaning MY clock huh? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the $500 million they bring back from offshore *has to be used to create new jobs...* not operate the company or pay the utility bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, HOW? Please be specific, something that doesn't sound like Moa's plan Bubs??? You know something that we could LEGALLY DO? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well like I said to Andy, it's a matter of reporting and accounting.
> 
> Okay... So I just created a new company and hired 100 people. Their total salary and benefits for 2016 come to $5 million. I repatriated $5 million from my account in Belize. This money is not taxed because I can show where I paid 100 new employees $5 million.
Click to expand...


You are simply crazy Bubs, especially for a Randian cultist, and that's difficult to do!


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that. If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages. It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to prevent Apple from importing iPhones. I want them to have the iPhones made in America by American workers. The tariff makes it more expensive for them to do what they are doing, and at the same time, we are offering incentives to get them to do something else. They're smart cookies... they'll do what is most profitable. It may be that it's still more profitable for them to have them made overseas and just pay the tariffs... that means the iPhone will be more expensive. Perhaps that leads the way for some entrepreneurial American to invent a phone that is comparable and produce it here with American workers.
> 
> The automation thing is a red herring. We're going to have automation and advancement in technology no matter what we do. It's an inevitable thing which doesn't care one way or another about our policies. Does it eliminate jobs? Sure it does.. it's been doing it for 70k years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   The entire reason Apple has Iphones built in China today, is explicitly because it is not automated.
> 
> If labor costs fell in the US, automation would decrease.   You have no idea how expensive automation is.   One small broken part in one place, causes the entire production line to fail.  That doesn't happen with people.   When one person is sick, you just move another person to that spot in the line, and keep going.   You can move human capital around at will.
> 
> Machines, you can't do that.  You have to redesign the entire system, when something doesn't fit.
> 
> At my company, we've investigated automating several times.  It simply isn't fiscally practical for us.   So the options are, outsource or go out of business.
> 
> If you place tariffs on the parts we import to make our product, we simply won't be in business anymore.   Instead of creating jobs, you'll kill off jobs.
> 
> Similarly, with Apple, you will never get Americans making Iphones here in the US.  It will never happen.  Not unless you lower labor costs, less regulations, lower wages.
> 
> Short of that, yes Apple is smart.  They'll make a completely automated factory, that will produce Iphones with 5 employees pushing the start button.   The result will be that US Iphones will be expensive, while international Iphones will be cheap.   Fewer Americans will own them, while few jobs are created.
> 
> Lots of negatives, zero positives.
Click to expand...


Well I understand what you're saying but you're saying it better than I can... Automation isn't a foregone conclusion... when it first comes out, it is clunky and doesn't work right. Things break down, newer and better automation comes along and if you were one of the poor saps who invested in the first phase, you're screwed... you paid a lot of money for something that just wasn't worth it, now there is something cheaper and better. It's one of the pitfalls of free market capitalism. 

With ANY level of automation I can imagine in the next century, we're not going to see all Apple iPhones made by just 5 people. That's quite an absurd over-exaggeration. So you are basically telling me a bout of the stomach bug could bring down Apple's production entirely? LMAO.... yeah, right.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work
> 
> "Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!
> 
> EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how tax rates work, that's why I'm cleaning your clock here. IF I bring $1 million to the US from my foreign bank, the IRS claims $390k before I ever see my money. As long as my money stays there and doesn't come here, the IRS doesn't and can't tax it. It's not counted as "earned income" because it hasn't been claimed or received as income in the US. But when I bring it here, it becomes "earned income" and taxed accordingly.
> 
> I'm saying we should suspend that taxation for 10 years on money brought in to create jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, ARE YOU CLAIMING AS A US CITIZEN, *YOU CAN HOLD MONEY OFFSHORE AND NOT PAY TAXES ON IT?* Really? LMAOROG
> 
> Cleaning MY clock huh? lol
Click to expand...


Yep. That's exactly what I am claiming because it's the truth.


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you make Corp A which which has $500 million in the bank in the us, brings in $500 million from offshore,just take the $500 million from the bank and pay div or buy back stock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the $500 million they bring back from offshore *has to be used to create new jobs...* not operate the company or pay the utility bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, HOW? Please be specific, something that doesn't sound like Moa's plan Bubs??? You know something that we could LEGALLY DO? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well like I said to Andy, it's a matter of reporting and accounting.
> 
> Okay... So I just created a new company and hired 100 people. Their total salary and benefits for 2016 come to $5 million. I repatriated $5 million from my account in Belize. This money is not taxed because I can show where I paid 100 new employees $5 million.
Click to expand...


Interesting.   I can't think of a single example anywhere, that would fit the description you gave.

If you created a 'new company'.... they wouldn't have $5 Million to repatriate.

Take the Ford plant in Ohio, where they just invested $168 Million.  That was started in 2011.  Only now does it look like they will be hiring people.

Or how about PolyOne plastics company, that bought out SparTech in Ohio.   They plan to close their Canadian factory, and invest another $100 Million, on top of the $500 Million they paid for SparTech.  But since the purchase, sales have declined, and they have laid off 70 people.

Factories take years of investment, before they start hiring people.  And sometimes even after the investment, you don't hire people because the market changes.

This is why I'm skeptical of your idea.    Nothing ever works exactly how you see it working in your head.

I'm not opposed to trying it, but I can't think of how it would actually function in the real world.  Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Listen YOU dishonest POS, I said from the start, MOVE THE FUK OUT OF THE US, BUT IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET, EXPECT TO PAY THE GAWDDAM TAXES HERE, YOUR PREMISE WAS THEY COULD MOVE AND EVADE THEM!
> 
> Without you bullshit premises, what else you got Bubs? You sure as fuk were slapped down on your BS premise that higher tax rates would discourage workers, you were slapped down on your BS trade war. You WERE slapped down on your "repatriation" holiday. What else you got?



And to think, we were actually in agreement a few posts back.  

How are you going to make a company in Belize pay US taxes?  What if China waddled over here and said... _"We demand US companies pay China taxes on it's profits from selling to our people!"? _ I think most of us my actually die from laughing so hard at such a silly notion. 

Now... We MIGHT make them pay a tariff here, but a foreign company is not obligated in ANY way to pay corporate US taxes... they just aren't...  not even in your wildest liberal dreams. Even the cut-n-paste you posted about this says it very clearly... they *must earn income in the US* to be taxed. If they don't have a US office or presence as an entity, they can't be taxed. If they can be taxed..if they retain a US identity... it is only on the profits made in the US by that entity. Volvo pays US corporate taxes on its operations in the United States, not on the entire corporation. They don't have to report to the IRS anything about their corporate profits. 

As for your mythical "slap downs" you probably need to go masturbate, son. I've not mentioned "higher tax rates would discourage workers" or anything about trade wars or holidays... you're hearing voices in your head. So take a break... go to the bathroom and take care of business... get it out of your system, then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation again?


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> If you created a 'new company'.... they wouldn't have $5 Million to repatriate.



 ..............this doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> Factories take years of investment, before they start hiring people. And sometimes even after the investment, you don't hire people because the market changes.



So you think people build factories and they just sit there collecting dust until the market is right? 

I don't think that is how it works, man. Sorry. I mean-- love your posts, agree with you most of the time--- give you thumbs up and green checks all the time... but you're not making any sense here.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm skeptical as well. It's a nice thought, and I believe there shouldn't be a corporate tax at all.
> 
> But how would you even be able to enforce such a system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on corporate tax. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and that's ridiculous. But this isn't really about corporate tax on profits as much as individual wealth held abroad. There is about $10 trillion in US wealth abroad. Most of it just sitting there collecting a nice dividend and being used by foreign governments. We need to find an incentive to bring that money home and create new jobs with it. A 10-year tax moratorium is a good place to start.
> 
> How do you enforce it? By reporting and accounting, like we enforce everything else. Easy.
> 
> And remember, we aren't talking about corporate taxation. When wealth is brought back into the US from abroad, the individual has to pay income tax on that money under current tax law.  So 39% of his money is gone before he even gets to see it. He can THEN invest that in his business, but the business will be taxed as well, per usual. So I am suggesting we eliminate that 39% income tax IF he is going to create new jobs with it. You do it for 10 years so that companies can plan and amortize over that time span. Not all companies need or want to expand today. But given such a huge incentive, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't create some new job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird YOU don't get how MARGINAL tax rates work
> 
> "Think" that money offshore was EARNED? Only EARNED income is taxed at 39% AND only amounts ABOVE about $450,000 a year
> 
> EFFECTIVE tax rates are near 23% today on the top 1%, EVEN LOWER on those "job creators' above that 1%er mark!
> 
> EFFECTIVE Corp taxes are 12%, NOT the MARGINAL RATE THAT OBAMA PROPOSED TO LOWER AND THE GOP HAS REFUSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how tax rates work, that's why I'm cleaning your clock here. IF I bring $1 million to the US from my foreign bank, the IRS claims $390k before I ever see my money. As long as my money stays there and doesn't come here, the IRS doesn't and can't tax it. It's not counted as "earned income" because it hasn't been claimed or received as income in the US. But when I bring it here, it becomes "earned income" and taxed accordingly.
> 
> I'm saying we should suspend that taxation for 10 years on money brought in to create jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, ARE YOU CLAIMING AS A US CITIZEN, *YOU CAN HOLD MONEY OFFSHORE AND NOT PAY TAXES ON IT?* Really? LMAOROG
> 
> Cleaning MY clock huh? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That's exactly what I am claiming because it's the truth.
Click to expand...



GAWD YOU'RE A MORON BUBS, BUT I HAVE TO GIVE IT TO YOU, YOU KEEP GETTING UP AFTER I SLAP YOUR ASS DOWN!


*UBS tax evasion controversy*


The Swiss bank UBS AG became embroiled in controversy starting in 2008 when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation made a formal request to travel to Switzerland to probe* a multi-billion-dollar tax evasion case involving the bank*


The investigation had, in part, been prompted by disclosures made by Bradley Birkenfeld, a former UBS banker in Switzerland, who testified to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that *UBS had directed its North American sales force to recruit U.S. taxpayers by offering them access to offshore financial vehicles to hide their assets and avoid taxes*

The events sparked by Birkenfeld's whistleblowing and resulting controversy created unprecedented pressure on UBS, the Swiss banking industry and the Swiss government from the U.S. and European Union members eager to clawback delinquent taxes from assets their taxpayers had stashed in offshore accounts maintained by UBS and other Swiss banks. The controversy eventually led to the erosion of Switzerland's fabled bank secrecy laws.


UBS tax evasion controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Offshore Compliance Initiative*


One of the Tax Division's top litigation priorities is combatting the serious problem of non-compliance with our tax laws by U.S. taxpayers using secret offshore bank accounts. Increased technical sophistication of financial instruments and the widespread use of the internet have made it easy to move money around the world. According to a 2008 Senate report [external link], the use of secret offshore accounts *to evade U.S. taxes costs the Treasury at least $100 billion annually.
*
Offshore Compliance Initiative | TAX | Department of Justice


US CITIZENS ARE REQUIRED, EVEN IF THEY HAVEN'T STEPPED FOOT ON US SOIL FOR YEARS, TO FILE US TAX RETURNS SHOWING INCOME AND ASSETS OFFSHORE!!

ANY INCOME RECEIVED  BY ANY US CITIZEN, IS SUPPOSED TO BE REPORTED AS INCOME IN THE US *REGARDLESS OF SOURCE!



* Two Swiss Banks Settle With U.S. Justice Department 


*
*The DOJ said both banks provided “detailed information” about foreign customer accounts and how the banks helped them conceal assets to avoid paying U.S. taxes*. “As required under the program, these banks will continue to cooperate as we aggressively pursue those individuals and the professionals who facilitated their criminal conduct,” the DOJ said.


Two Swiss Banks Settle With U.S. Justice Department


*When U.S. Citizens Living Abroad Owe U.S. Tax*

*You may not owe any actual tax, but if you're a U.S. citizen, you probably need to file a tax return no matter where you live.*
When U.S. Citizens Living Abroad Owe U.S. Tax | Nolo.com

DAMN THAT SLAP HURT BUBS


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen YOU dishonest POS, I said from the start, MOVE THE FUK OUT OF THE US, BUT IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET, EXPECT TO PAY THE GAWDDAM TAXES HERE, YOUR PREMISE WAS THEY COULD MOVE AND EVADE THEM!
> 
> Without you bullshit premises, what else you got Bubs? You sure as fuk were slapped down on your BS premise that higher tax rates would discourage workers, you were slapped down on your BS trade war. You WERE slapped down on your "repatriation" holiday. What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think, we were actually in agreement a few posts back.
> 
> How are you going to make a company in Belize pay US taxes?  What if China waddled over here and said... _"We demand US companies pay China taxes on it's profits from selling to our people!"? _ I think most of us my actually die from laughing so hard at such a silly notion.
> 
> Now... We MIGHT make them pay a tariff here, but a foreign company is not obligated in ANY way to pay corporate US taxes... they just aren't...  not even in your wildest liberal dreams. Even the cut-n-paste you posted about this says it very clearly... they *must earn income in the US* to be taxed. If they don't have a US office or presence as an entity, they can't be taxed. If they can be taxed..if they retain a US identity... it is only on the profits made in the US by that entity. Volvo pays US corporate taxes on its operations in the United States, not on the entire corporation. They don't have to report to the IRS anything about their corporate profits.
> 
> As for your mythical "slap downs" you probably need to go masturbate, son. I've not mentioned "higher tax rates would discourage workers" or anything about trade wars or holidays... you're hearing voices in your head. So take a break... go to the bathroom and take care of business... get it out of your system, then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation again?
Click to expand...



Got it Bubs, YOU being dishonest AGAIN. I'm shocked, just shocked

ONCE MORE:

Listen YOU dishonest POS, I said from the start, MOVE THE FUK OUT OF THE US, BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET, *EXPECT TO PAY THE GAWDDAM TAXES HERE, YOUR PREMISE WAS THEY COULD MOVE AND EVADE THEM!


YOU KNOW, MOVE THE CORP H/Q BUT SELL IN THE US, THUS OWING US TAXES YOU DUMBASS, LIKE YOU AGREED? LOL



Keep being dishonest Bubs,


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Factories take years of investment, before they start hiring people. And sometimes even after the investment, you don't hire people because the market changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think people build factories and they just sit there collecting dust until the market is right?
> 
> I don't think that is how it works, man. Sorry. I mean-- love your posts, agree with you most of the time--- give you thumbs up and green checks all the time... but you're not making any sense here.
Click to expand...


To complicated for you Bubs, in your "reality" EVERY investment needs jobs created right off the bat, never mind R&D or lags in the Corp structure. Go back to the Randian fetish, you made more sense then Bubs than this protectionist crap built on a system that has not worked (repatriation)


----------



## Boss

Andylusion said:


> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.



Okay, well... Let me present you with an example. 

I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million. 

Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it. 

Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen YOU dishonest POS, I said from the start, MOVE THE FUK OUT OF THE US, BUT IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET, EXPECT TO PAY THE GAWDDAM TAXES HERE, YOUR PREMISE WAS THEY COULD MOVE AND EVADE THEM!
> 
> Without you bullshit premises, what else you got Bubs? You sure as fuk were slapped down on your BS premise that higher tax rates would discourage workers, you were slapped down on your BS trade war. You WERE slapped down on your "repatriation" holiday. What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to think, we were actually in agreement a few posts back.
> 
> How are you going to make a company in Belize pay US taxes?  What if China waddled over here and said... _"We demand US companies pay China taxes on it's profits from selling to our people!"? _ I think most of us my actually die from laughing so hard at such a silly notion.
> 
> Now... We MIGHT make them pay a tariff here, but a foreign company is not obligated in ANY way to pay corporate US taxes... they just aren't...  not even in your wildest liberal dreams. Even the cut-n-paste you posted about this says it very clearly... they *must earn income in the US* to be taxed. If they don't have a US office or presence as an entity, they can't be taxed. If they can be taxed..if they retain a US identity... it is only on the profits made in the US by that entity. Volvo pays US corporate taxes on its operations in the United States, not on the entire corporation. They don't have to report to the IRS anything about their corporate profits.
> 
> As for your mythical "slap downs" you probably need to go masturbate, son. I've not mentioned "higher tax rates would discourage workers" or anything about trade wars or holidays... you're hearing voices in your head. So take a break... go to the bathroom and take care of business... get it out of your system, then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation again?
Click to expand...



*"We demand US companies pay China taxes on it's profits from selling to our people!"? "*

Multinational corporations reported paying $128 billion in corporate taxes to foreign countries on $470 billion of taxable income in 2010, according to most recent IRS data.

*Asia had the second-largest concentration of reported foreign taxable income in 2010. U.S. corporations reported $83.4 billion in taxable income and paid $21.6 billion taxes in this region.*


*Most Foreign Taxable Income Is Taxed at Rates over 20 percent*

While there are undoubtedly U.S. multinationals that pai*d low effective rates on their foreign earned income in some countries, a majority of foreign taxable income reported by U.S. corporations was taxed at effective rates between 20 and 30 percent overseas.
*

How Much Do U.S. Multinational Corporations Pay in Foreign Income Taxes?


lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
Click to expand...



"I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."

YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!


----------



## Dad2three

American citizens must report all types of income on their U.S. tax returns regardless of the country in which it's earned or received.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*



You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree! 

You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
Click to expand...



GAWD YOU ARE A REAL DUMBFUK BUBS

IF A CORP SELLS PRODUCTS IN THE US, IT HAS LIABILITIES IN THE US, IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, DON'T SELL IT IN THE US. EASY ENOUGH FOR YOU SLOW FUK?


EVERY DOLLAR EARNED BY A US CITIZEN, REGARDLESS OF LOCALITY EARNED, IS REQUIRED TO REPORT IT ON THEIR TAXES, THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION, UNLESS IT'S LESS  THAN US TAX RATES (CAYMAN 5%, YOU OWE 34% US) GET IT DUMFUK?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
Click to expand...



A TARIFF ISN'T AN INCOME  TAX YOU DUMBFUK.  It's paid REGARDLESS whether a comp is profitable or not. Gawd


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!
Click to expand...


No... I didn't claim it as taxable US income because it wasn't earned in the US or received as income in the US. I paid taxes to Germany from that money, not my US holdings or income. I didn't get to "write off" anything because it wasn't reported income, it wasn't subject to taxation in the US, I didn't earn the income in the US and didn't claim it as income in the US. 

I don't really know what you think the tax laws are, but you can't tax money I make in another country just because I am a US citizen. You can only tax what I *receive as earned income in the US*. You have no tax jurisdiction elsewhere.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> EVERY DOLLAR EARNED BY A US CITIZEN, REGARDLESS OF LOCALITY EARNED, IS REQUIRED TO REPORT IT ON THEIR TAXES, THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION, UNLESS IT'S LESS THAN US TAX RATES (CAYMAN 5%, YOU OWE 34% US) GET IT DUMFUK?



NONSENSE! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 

I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends.  It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN. 

My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I didn't claim it as taxable US income because it wasn't earned in the US or received as income in the US. I paid taxes to Germany from that money, not my US holdings or income. I didn't get to "write off" anything because it wasn't reported income, it wasn't subject to taxation in the US, I didn't earn the income in the US and didn't claim it as income in the US.
> 
> I don't really know what you think the tax laws are, but you can't tax money I make in another country just because I am a US citizen. You can only tax what I *receive as earned income in the US*. You have no tax jurisdiction elsewhere.
Click to expand...



If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. *Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.*

U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad

MORON


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A TARIFF ISN'T AN INCOME  TAX YOU DUMBFUK.  It's paid REGARDLESS whether a comp is profitable or not. Gawd
Click to expand...


Right... It's NOT an income or corporate tax... it's a fee you're paying to access US markets. If you want to produce your product in China... FINE... Go for it! Just know that when you try to slip it back in to the US to sell to the US market, you're going to pay a high tariff.  Maybe it's still worth it? Or maybe some American capitalist figures out a way to do it here and save money? 

What you want to do is try to force the capitalist to play by your rules and he doesn't have to. You are saying you want to levy higher taxation on him to discourage his outsourcing... but what stops him from simply relocating to Belize? You see... you've killed your cash cow. Now you don't have a corporation to tax anymore. They've gone... checked out!  

...What now, brown cow?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY DOLLAR EARNED BY A US CITIZEN, REGARDLESS OF LOCALITY EARNED, IS REQUIRED TO REPORT IT ON THEIR TAXES, THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION, UNLESS IT'S LESS THAN US TAX RATES (CAYMAN 5%, YOU OWE 34% US) GET IT DUMFUK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends.  It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN.
> 
> My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it.
Click to expand...



YOU FAIL SINCE YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE GAWDDAM TAX SYSTEM YOU IDIOT!




*Why does the US tax citizens on worldwide income regardless of location?*

*Why does the US tax citizens on worldwide income regardless of location? | Expat-Tax-Help.com*




*US TAXES EQUAL INCOME MINUS TAXES PAID TO OTHER NATIONS (CREDIT) THEN YOU "OWE", BUT SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX RATE, YOU OWE ZERO TO THE US AND BRING IT IN WITHOUT THE HOLIDAY DUMBSHIT!!*


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I didn't claim it as taxable US income because it wasn't earned in the US or received as income in the US. I paid taxes to Germany from that money, not my US holdings or income. I didn't get to "write off" anything because it wasn't reported income, it wasn't subject to taxation in the US, I didn't earn the income in the US and didn't claim it as income in the US.
> 
> I don't really know what you think the tax laws are, but you can't tax money I make in another country just because I am a US citizen. You can only tax what I *receive as earned income in the US*. You have no tax jurisdiction elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. *Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.*
> 
> U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
> 
> MORON
Click to expand...


*Your worldwide income  (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *
If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A TARIFF ISN'T AN INCOME  TAX YOU DUMBFUK.  It's paid REGARDLESS whether a comp is profitable or not. Gawd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... It's NOT an income or corporate tax... it's a fee you're paying to access US markets. If you want to produce your product in China... FINE... Go for it! Just know that when you try to slip it back in to the US to sell to the US market, you're going to pay a high tariff.  Maybe it's still worth it? Or maybe some American capitalist figures out a way to do it here and save money?
> 
> What you want to do is try to force the capitalist to play by your rules and he doesn't have to. You are saying you want to levy higher taxation on him to discourage his outsourcing... but what stops him from simply relocating to Belize? You see... you've killed your cash cow. Now you don't have a corporation to tax anymore. They've gone... checked out!
> 
> ...What now, brown cow?
Click to expand...



Sorry Bubba, you are dumber than a fukkn breadbox!

*EVERY CORP SELLING IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF H/Q, OWES US TAXES ON THAT NET INCOME YOU DUMFUK! *

Just like if a Corp is in China selling a product, it owes a Corp tax there ON PROFITS. Same as Germany,UK, etc IF EARNED IN THAT COUNTRY, TAXES ARE OWED IN THAT COUNTRY DUMMY! I



i


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> US TAXES EQUAL INCOME MINUS TAXES PAID TO OTHER NATIONS (CREDIT) THEN YOU "OWE", BUT SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX RATE, YOU OWE ZERO TO THE US AND BRING IT IN WITHOUT THE HOLIDAY DUMBSHIT!



Sorry, my tax attorneys disagree with you. If I claim the wealth in the US, I am subject to US taxes. It does not matter how much tax I paid to Germany in 1988, or how much I have paid them on the dividends since that time. If I bring it to the US and claim it as income, it is taxed as earned income... there is no credit. And it is 28% and not 39%... I was incorrect on that, thought they had changed it when they eliminated the Bush tax cuts.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A TARIFF ISN'T AN INCOME  TAX YOU DUMBFUK.  It's paid REGARDLESS whether a comp is profitable or not. Gawd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... It's NOT an income or corporate tax... it's a fee you're paying to access US markets. If you want to produce your product in China... FINE... Go for it! Just know that when you try to slip it back in to the US to sell to the US market, you're going to pay a high tariff.  Maybe it's still worth it? Or maybe some American capitalist figures out a way to do it here and save money?
> 
> What you want to do is try to force the capitalist to play by your rules and he doesn't have to. You are saying you want to levy higher taxation on him to discourage his outsourcing... but what stops him from simply relocating to Belize? You see... you've killed your cash cow. Now you don't have a corporation to tax anymore. They've gone... checked out!
> 
> ...What now, brown cow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, you are dumber than a fukkn breadbox!
> 
> *EVERY CORP SELLING IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF H/Q, OWES US TAXES ON THAT NET INCOME YOU DUMFUK! *
> 
> Just like if a Corp is in China selling a product, it owes a Corp tax there ON PROFITS. Same as Germany,UK, etc IF EARNED IN THAT COUNTRY, TAXES ARE OWED IN THAT COUNTRY DUMMY! I
> 
> 
> 
> i
Click to expand...


Tell ya what, bud... You go try and collect some income tax from a Chinese company and let me know how that works out between you and the Chinese government.... okay?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I didn't claim it as taxable US income because it wasn't earned in the US or received as income in the US. I paid taxes to Germany from that money, not my US holdings or income. I didn't get to "write off" anything because it wasn't reported income, it wasn't subject to taxation in the US, I didn't earn the income in the US and didn't claim it as income in the US.
> 
> I don't really know what you think the tax laws are, but you can't tax money I make in another country just because I am a US citizen. You can only tax what I *receive as earned income in the US*. You have no tax jurisdiction elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. *Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.*
> 
> U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
> 
> MORON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your worldwide income  (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *
> If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable.
Click to expand...




GAWD, IGNORE THE SWISS BANKS I SHOWED, IGNORE THE IRS LINK I SHOWED DUMMY

*Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.*

U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad

*What is Taxed Where? Germany? America?*


Accept the fact that you have to pay taxes, but don’t pay more taxes than you are required to pay.  *The basic document governing what is to be taxed where is the Double-Taxation Treaty (DTT) between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America dated August 29, 1989, as amended by subsequent protocols.*  The tax laws of both countries are not fully aligned with the Treaty, but if differences arise, the Treaty takes precedence.  For each category, you should not pay more in total than the higher tax rate of the two countries.  Also refer:  Germany  - Tax Treaty Documents for details.

What is taxed where?  *If you are a US citizen or resident alien, the USA demands the right to tax your worldwide income.  Double taxation is avoided by means of a system of Income Exclusions and/or Tax Credits*.  Remember that you must annually file a US tax return, even though it results in no additional tax liability to the US IRS.  Refer Publication 17, “Tax Guide for Individuals” for detailed guidance.

Taxes | AGBC - American-German Business Club

DUMFUK


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> US TAXES EQUAL INCOME MINUS TAXES PAID TO OTHER NATIONS (CREDIT) THEN YOU "OWE", BUT SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX RATE, YOU OWE ZERO TO THE US AND BRING IT IN WITHOUT THE HOLIDAY DUMBSHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my tax attorneys disagree with you. If I claim the wealth in the US, I am subject to US taxes. It does not matter how much tax I paid to Germany in 1988, or how much I have paid them on the dividends since that time. If I bring it to the US and claim it as income, it is taxed as earned income... there is no credit. And it is 28% and not 39%... I was incorrect on that, thought they had changed it when they eliminated the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...


Sure Bubs sure, lol THAT'S why THOUSANDS of US citizens made deals with the IRS over hiding money in Switzerland, lol

*What about my foreign bank accounts? What are FBAR and FATCA Form 8938?*

We saved the best almost for last. In order to help it track those Americans who are not reporting their foreign income, IRS and the US Treasury have recently instituted a number of informational forms that must be filed.

1.* The FBAR. This is a relatively simple form that is used to collect basic information on foreign financial accounts controlled by a US citizen living in the USA or overseas. The form is filed with the Treasury Department and is not filed with your tax return.  As it is only an informational form, it will not have a direct impact on your tax liability.  Financial account definition includes: a bank account, brokerage account, mutual fund, unit trust, or other types of financial accounts.  Reporting is required if the combined total of such accounts totals $10'000 or more.*  As of July 2013, this form is supposed to be filed electronically.  More info at *FinCEN*.

2. *It's important to note* that the FBAR must be received by the Department of the Treasury by June 30th each year.  There is no extension for filing this form.  The FBAR is filed separately from your tax return. It should be filed electronically on the *FinCEN website*.

3.* FBAR Penalties.* The penalties for non-filing of the FBAR are extremely harsh. They range from an automatic penalty of $10,000 to 50% of the balance of the account. It gets worse - *if the IRS investigator can prove that you willfully withheld the information from the government, criminal charges can be filed.*

4. In addition, *Form 8938 will be required starting fiscal year 2011.*  Form 8938 (*FATCA*) must be attached as an annex to your 1040. *The reporting requirements for foreign financial assets are more extensive and more complicated than those for the FBAR (which has to be filed as well). The threshold for reporting depends on the total amount of foreign assets held, on where you are domiciled, and whether you are filing jointly or otherwise.  *

*Form 8938: **www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8938.pdf* 
*Instructions for Form 8938: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8938.pdf


US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)

DUMBASS
*


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> US TAXES EQUAL INCOME MINUS TAXES PAID TO OTHER NATIONS (CREDIT) THEN YOU "OWE", BUT SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX RATE, YOU OWE ZERO TO THE US AND BRING IT IN WITHOUT THE HOLIDAY DUMBSHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my tax attorneys disagree with you. If I claim the wealth in the US, I am subject to US taxes. It does not matter how much tax I paid to Germany in 1988, or how much I have paid them on the dividends since that time. If I bring it to the US and claim it as income, it is taxed as earned income... there is no credit. And it is 28% and not 39%... I was incorrect on that, thought they had changed it when they eliminated the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...




Bush cut it to 35% dummy, don't act like you have money offshore, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT *IF YOU WANT THE WORLDS LARGEST MARKET...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to pay the *hefty tariffs....* See, we agree!
> 
> You're just stubbornly mired in some ignorance regarding tax laws. We can't tax companies which exist in other countries, it's not our jurisdiction to levy taxes on them. Do we need to get the UN or World Court involved in this?  What makes you think the United States has the authority to levy taxes on foreign companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A TARIFF ISN'T AN INCOME  TAX YOU DUMBFUK.  It's paid REGARDLESS whether a comp is profitable or not. Gawd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... It's NOT an income or corporate tax... it's a fee you're paying to access US markets. If you want to produce your product in China... FINE... Go for it! Just know that when you try to slip it back in to the US to sell to the US market, you're going to pay a high tariff.  Maybe it's still worth it? Or maybe some American capitalist figures out a way to do it here and save money?
> 
> What you want to do is try to force the capitalist to play by your rules and he doesn't have to. You are saying you want to levy higher taxation on him to discourage his outsourcing... but what stops him from simply relocating to Belize? You see... you've killed your cash cow. Now you don't have a corporation to tax anymore. They've gone... checked out!
> 
> ...What now, brown cow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, you are dumber than a fukkn breadbox!
> 
> *EVERY CORP SELLING IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF H/Q, OWES US TAXES ON THAT NET INCOME YOU DUMFUK! *
> 
> Just like if a Corp is in China selling a product, it owes a Corp tax there ON PROFITS. Same as Germany,UK, etc IF EARNED IN THAT COUNTRY, TAXES ARE OWED IN THAT COUNTRY DUMMY! I
> 
> 
> 
> i
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell ya what, bud... You go try and collect some income tax from a Chinese company and let me know how that works out between you and the Chinese government.... okay?
Click to expand...



They do it. I gave you the link you stupid fuk


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I can't think of a single example anywhere that fits your description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, well... Let me present you with an example.
> 
> I have an amazing idea for a new product that I believe will revolutionize the world. I'm not going to divulge what it is for obvious reasons. It requires production and assembly by hand, it can't be automated. It also requires a building, which I already own. I pay very little property tax on it... I have it, it's sitting there waiting and ready to go. To start up, I will need about 100 employees in various capacities. They will be paid accordingly but their total incomes for the year with benefits, will be around $5 million.
> 
> Now... I don't have $5 million here. I could borrow it but I don't want to. I actually have $5 million in a German bank account, which has been sitting there for decades. Under current US tax laws, I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it.
> 
> Under my plan, the 10-year tax moratorium... I could bring that $5 million back to the US without a tax penalty and use it to hire and pay my 100 employees for fiscal year 2016. I would LOVE to be able to do this because I think my idea would be well worth it. If I am correct, I might hire 100 more employees in 2017 and do the same thing. I have 10 years to fully implement my plans, I could even start out with 20 or 50 people. The point is, there is an incentive for me to implement my great idea! To create new jobs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> YOU ARE EITHER EVADING US TAXES OR YOUR PREMISE IS BS TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE YOU PAID TAXES TO GERMANY, WROTE OFF THAT AMOUNT OFF YOUR US INCOME TAX BURDEN, AND PROB GOT A NET ZERO TAX BURDEN DUMMY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I didn't claim it as taxable US income because it wasn't earned in the US or received as income in the US. I paid taxes to Germany from that money, not my US holdings or income. I didn't get to "write off" anything because it wasn't reported income, it wasn't subject to taxation in the US, I didn't earn the income in the US and didn't claim it as income in the US.
> 
> I don't really know what you think the tax laws are, but you can't tax money I make in another country just because I am a US citizen. You can only tax what I *receive as earned income in the US*. You have no tax jurisdiction elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. *Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.*
> 
> U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
> 
> MORON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your worldwide income  (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *
> If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable.
Click to expand...




*What about my foreign bank accounts? What are FBAR and FATCA Form 8938?*

*We saved the best almost for last. In order to help it track those Americans who are not reporting their foreign income*, IRS and the US Treasury have recently instituted a number of informational forms that must be filed. 

1. The* FBAR.* This is a relatively simple form that is used to *collect basic information on foreign financial accounts controlled by a US citizen living in the USA *or overseas. The form is filed with the Treasury Department and is not filed with your tax return.  As it is only an informational form, it will not have a direct impact on your tax liability.  Financial account definition includes: a bank account, brokerage account, mutual fund, unit trust, or other types of financial accounts.  Reporting is required if the combined total of such accounts totals $10'000 or more.  As of July 2013, this form is supposed to be filed electronically.  More info at *FinCEN*. 

2. *It's important to note* that the FBAR must be received by the Department of the Treasury by June 30th each year.  There is no extension for filing this form.  The FBAR is filed separately from your tax return. It should be filed electronically on the *FinCEN website*.

3.* FBAR Penalties.* *The penalties for non-filing of the FBAR are extremely harsh. They range from an automatic penalty of $10,000 to 50% of the balance of the account. It gets worse - if the IRS investigator can prove that you willfully withheld the information from the government, criminal charges can be filed.*

4. In addition, *Form 8938 will be required starting fiscal year 2011.*  Form 8938 (*FATCA*) must be attached as an annex to your 1040. *The reporting requirements for foreign financial assets are more extensive and more complicated than those for the FBAR (which has to be filed as well). The threshold for reporting depends on the total amount of foreign assets held, on where you are domiciled, and whether you are filing jointly or otherwise.  *

*Form 8938: **www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8938.pdf*  
*Instructions for Form 8938: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8938.pdf



GAWD


Taxes | AGBC - American-German Business Club*


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> EVERY CORP SELLING IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF H/Q, OWES US TAXES ON THAT NET INCOME YOU DUMFUK!



Of course... But you're only taxing what they sell in the US. They can locate in Belize, pay a fraction of the corporate tax... actually, I think it's NO corporate tax in Belize... and sell all over the world without paying the US a single red penny in tax on that. 

In fact, they can probably exploit our shitty trade deals and 'export' to a US distributor who doesn't have to pay any additional corporate tax.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> US TAXES EQUAL INCOME MINUS TAXES PAID TO OTHER NATIONS (CREDIT) THEN YOU "OWE", BUT SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX RATE, YOU OWE ZERO TO THE US AND BRING IT IN WITHOUT THE HOLIDAY DUMBSHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my tax attorneys disagree with you. If I claim the wealth in the US, I am subject to US taxes. It does not matter how much tax I paid to Germany in 1988, or how much I have paid them on the dividends since that time. If I bring it to the US and claim it as income, it is taxed as earned income... there is no credit. And it is 28% and not 39%... I was incorrect on that, thought they had changed it when they eliminated the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...



Damn my hand hurts Bubba


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY CORP SELLING IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF H/Q, OWES US TAXES ON THAT NET INCOME YOU DUMFUK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course... But you're only taxing what they sell in the US. They can locate in Belize, pay a fraction of the corporate tax... actually, I think it's NO corporate tax in Belize... and sell all over the world without paying the US a single red penny in tax on that.
> 
> In fact, they can probably exploit our shitty trade deals and 'export' to a US distributor who doesn't have to pay any additional corporate tax.
Click to expand...


Cool, THEY ALREADY DO THAT DUMMY! Let them, who gives a fuk? IF THEY WANT TO PLAY IN THE US, LET THEM FUKKN PAY US TAXES!!!!


MY TAX POLICY IS MUCH EASIER AND WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN YOUR BS PREMISE BUBS!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.



Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't. 

Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...



OK, IGNORE THE IRS LINK, THE SWISS BANKS PLEADING GUILTY TO HIDING US ACCOUNTS, THE CLEAR PROOF YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT BUBS, YOU "BELIEVE". Got it

NO DOUBLE TAXATION YOU DUMBASS! WE HAVE TREATIES, BUT YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO REPORT ALL US INCOME AND FILL OUT A TAX FORM, EVEN IF NO US TAX BURDEN. Gawd you are a dumbfuk


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...




GERMANY (THAT'S WHY I GOT THIS LINK YOU DUMBFUK


*What about my foreign bank accounts? What are FBAR and FATCA Form 8938?*

*We saved the best almost for last. In order to help it track those Americans who are not reporting their foreign income*, IRS and the US Treasury have recently instituted a number of informational forms that must be filed. 

1. The* FBAR.* This is a relatively simple form that is used to *collect basic information on foreign financial accounts controlled by a US citizen living in the USA or overseas.* The form is filed with the Treasury Department and is not filed with your tax return. As it is only an informational form, it will not have a direct impact on your tax liability. Financial account definition includes: a bank account, brokerage account, mutual fund, unit trust, or other types of financial accounts. Reporting is required if the combined total of such accounts totals $10'000 or more. As of July 2013, this form is supposed to be filed electronically. More info at *FinCEN*. 

2. *It's important to note* that the FBAR must be received by the Department of the Treasury by June 30th each year. There is no extension for filing this form. The FBAR is filed separately from your tax return. It should be filed electronically on the *FinCEN website*.

3.* FBAR Penalties.* *The penalties for non-filing of the FBAR are extremely harsh. They range from an automatic penalty of $10,000 to 50% of the balance of the account. It gets worse - if the IRS investigator can prove that you willfully withheld the information from the government, criminal charges can be filed.*

4. In addition, *Form 8938 will be required starting fiscal year 2011.* Form 8938 (*FATCA*) must be attached as an annex to your 1040. *The reporting requirements for foreign financial assets are more extensive and more complicated than those for the FBAR (which has to be filed as well). The threshold for reporting depends on the total amount of foreign assets held, on where you are domiciled, and whether you are filing jointly or otherwise. *

*Form 8938: **www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8938.pdf*  
*Instructions for Form 8938: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8938.pdf



GAWD


Taxes | AGBC - American-German Business Club*


----------



## Andylusion

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of tariffs on imports is going to fix that. If you put in place a law to prevent Apple from importing Iphones, that would never result in hundreds of people employed to make Iphones for middle class wages. It would result in 5 people being hired, to hit the start button on the automation line that builds the phones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to prevent Apple from importing iPhones. I want them to have the iPhones made in America by American workers. The tariff makes it more expensive for them to do what they are doing, and at the same time, we are offering incentives to get them to do something else. They're smart cookies... they'll do what is most profitable. It may be that it's still more profitable for them to have them made overseas and just pay the tariffs... that means the iPhone will be more expensive. Perhaps that leads the way for some entrepreneurial American to invent a phone that is comparable and produce it here with American workers.
> 
> The automation thing is a red herring. We're going to have automation and advancement in technology no matter what we do. It's an inevitable thing which doesn't care one way or another about our policies. Does it eliminate jobs? Sure it does.. it's been doing it for 70k years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   The entire reason Apple has Iphones built in China today, is explicitly because it is not automated.
> 
> If labor costs fell in the US, automation would decrease.   You have no idea how expensive automation is.   One small broken part in one place, causes the entire production line to fail.  That doesn't happen with people.   When one person is sick, you just move another person to that spot in the line, and keep going.   You can move human capital around at will.
> 
> Machines, you can't do that.  You have to redesign the entire system, when something doesn't fit.
> 
> At my company, we've investigated automating several times.  It simply isn't fiscally practical for us.   So the options are, outsource or go out of business.
> 
> If you place tariffs on the parts we import to make our product, we simply won't be in business anymore.   Instead of creating jobs, you'll kill off jobs.
> 
> Similarly, with Apple, you will never get Americans making Iphones here in the US.  It will never happen.  Not unless you lower labor costs, less regulations, lower wages.
> 
> Short of that, yes Apple is smart.  They'll make a completely automated factory, that will produce Iphones with 5 employees pushing the start button.   The result will be that US Iphones will be expensive, while international Iphones will be cheap.   Fewer Americans will own them, while few jobs are created.
> 
> Lots of negatives, zero positives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I understand what you're saying but you're saying it better than I can... Automation isn't a foregone conclusion... when it first comes out, it is clunky and doesn't work right. Things break down, newer and better automation comes along and if you were one of the poor saps who invested in the first phase, you're screwed... you paid a lot of money for something that just wasn't worth it, now there is something cheaper and better. It's one of the pitfalls of free market capitalism.
> 
> With ANY level of automation I can imagine in the next century, we're not going to see all Apple iPhones made by just 5 people. That's quite an absurd over-exaggeration. So you are basically telling me a bout of the stomach bug could bring down Apple's production entirely? LMAO.... yeah, right.
Click to expand...


Well of course I don't know specifically about Apple, or their production process.

Several years back I worked a company that specialized in electronic circuit board production.     The entire production department was operated by 5 people.   Two production lines, two shifts.  4 people, plus one manager of production.  So a total of 5 people.

We produced a few thousand a week, depending on the complexity of the job given.    All I had to do was setup the equipment for the given job, and press "start".

Now I worked at another company which did the exact same job, but it was not automated.    So we had a good 20 people.

That place laid everyone off, but the other is growing.

But my point isn't that automation is 'clunky' and it breaks.

Which is true.... but that's not actually the big issue with automation.    The main problem is flexibility.     Most automation is custom built.   No one else is building the exact product you are.   (unless you are a rip off company in china).     So that robot you are building to make the Widget, is specifically built to make that specific Widget.

But as with all products, you have upgrades and revisions.

So you change something, and then you have a robot that is designed to make the old product, and on one else wants that robot.

Each 'revision' ends up costing thousands, possibly tens of thousands, in upgrades and changes to the automation, to make it build the new product.

The famous example from Apple, was that whole scandal with the screens that scratched and fogged up.

So there were thousands of Iphones with the old screens.  When Apple came out with the new screens, the factory in China, simply gathered the employees, and had them start removing the bad screens from the built phones, and installing the new screens.

Machines and robots can't do that.    They would spend days, possibly a month designing a system to remove the old screens, and setup a new production line to put the new screens in the already built phones.

These kinds of expenses of automation can't really be quantified, or replace human involvement.

Nearly every manufacturing company would rather have human labor over automation.   But like I said... none of that matters if the cost of labor is too high for the value of the product.


----------



## thanatos144

All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...


*
"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you. You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*



*LOL*



*US Federal Tax Liability: Expat Tax USA*
When moving overseas, one of the biggest questions many have concerns Expat Tax. Unfortunately, America is one of a handful of countries that vigorously pursues taxes worldwide – so don’t expect to avoid a U.S. tax debt by moving overseas. As a matter of fact, you’re not even allowed to give up your U.S. citizenship to eliminate a tax obligation.

Be aware that America has tax treaties with over 42 countries where the IRS and the foreign tax agencies exchange tax data on their residents. *Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case.* You still should file a return with the U.S. every year, whether you have income or not. You are not legally required to do so if you don’t owe U.S. taxes, but it’s an important preventative measure as there is a Statute of Limitations on tax disputes. If there is a dispute over back taxes, you start running out the clock on the Statute of Limitations if you file. If you don’t, the IRS can conduct a personal audit at any time in the future and you’ll be liable if they decide against you.

The IRS provides a tax guide for citizens living abroad, this can be found here. There are also some basic facts you need to know about taxation in 2012.

Tax liabilities if you are a US citizen living abroad. : Expat Info Desk







_* I am an American living and working abroad. Do I need to file a US tax return?*_

Regardless of where you live now, being a United States citizen requires that you file a yearly tax return with the IRS. Green card holders and all US citizens are required to file a US return, no matter where they live, as long as their income (earned in the US and abroad) is just over $9,000. Many people wrongly assume that because they have never owed money to the IRS, they simply don't have to file.  *Earning anything over $9,350.00 does require you to file, however.  The US has treaties with many foreign countries that will reduce or even eliminate actual owed tax*. You cannot, however, take advantage of these benefits if you don't file. 

US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk




4%? LOL, Somalia here we come, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...



Damn my back hand is sore Bubba


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4%? LOL, Somalia here we come, lol
Click to expand...

Why do you hate your kids? You must because you are leaving them crushing debt in a country that is not Better for them then it was as for you.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4%? LOL, Somalia here we come, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate your kids? You must because you are leaving them crushing debt in a country that is not Better for them then it was as for you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was the Dems who gutted tax revenues as they gutted taxes for the rich AND then ramped up spending on the credit card *shaking head*

Fukkn morons


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4%? LOL, Somalia here we come, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate your kids? You must because you are leaving them crushing debt in a country that is not Better for them then it was as for you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the Dems who gutted tax revenues as they gutted taxes for the rich AND then ramped up spending on the credit card *shaking head*
> 
> Fukkn morons
Click to expand...

Wow .... total lack of reality.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## KissMy

Workers are much happier when Wages rise vs Prices. Clinton & Obama did the best. Bush #2 was The Worst President!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you. You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> *US Federal Tax Liability: Expat Tax USA*
> When moving overseas, one of the biggest questions many have concerns Expat Tax. Unfortunately, America is one of a handful of countries that vigorously pursues taxes worldwide – so don’t expect to avoid a U.S. tax debt by moving overseas. As a matter of fact, you’re not even allowed to give up your U.S. citizenship to eliminate a tax obligation.
> 
> Be aware that America has tax treaties with over 42 countries where the IRS and the foreign tax agencies exchange tax data on their residents. *Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case.* You still should file a return with the U.S. every year, whether you have income or not. You are not legally required to do so if you don’t owe U.S. taxes, but it’s an important preventative measure as there is a Statute of Limitations on tax disputes. If there is a dispute over back taxes, you start running out the clock on the Statute of Limitations if you file. If you don’t, the IRS can conduct a personal audit at any time in the future and you’ll be liable if they decide against you.
> 
> The IRS provides a tax guide for citizens living abroad, this can be found here. There are also some basic facts you need to know about taxation in 2012.
> 
> Tax liabilities if you are a US citizen living abroad. : Expat Info Desk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _* I am an American living and working abroad. Do I need to file a US tax return?*_
> 
> Regardless of where you live now, being a United States citizen requires that you file a yearly tax return with the IRS. Green card holders and all US citizens are required to file a US return, no matter where they live, as long as their income (earned in the US and abroad) is just over $9,000. Many people wrongly assume that because they have never owed money to the IRS, they simply don't have to file.  *Earning anything over $9,350.00 does require you to file, however.  The US has treaties with many foreign countries that will reduce or even eliminate actual owed tax*. You cannot, however, take advantage of these benefits if you don't file.
> 
> US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)
Click to expand...


*You are not legally required to do so if you don’t owe U.S. taxes...*

Argument over, you lose. Sorry... try again later.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worldwide *income* is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you.  You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't.
> 
> Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> "Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you. You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> *US Federal Tax Liability: Expat Tax USA*
> When moving overseas, one of the biggest questions many have concerns Expat Tax. Unfortunately, America is one of a handful of countries that vigorously pursues taxes worldwide – so don’t expect to avoid a U.S. tax debt by moving overseas. As a matter of fact, you’re not even allowed to give up your U.S. citizenship to eliminate a tax obligation.
> 
> Be aware that America has tax treaties with over 42 countries where the IRS and the foreign tax agencies exchange tax data on their residents. *Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case.* You still should file a return with the U.S. every year, whether you have income or not. You are not legally required to do so if you don’t owe U.S. taxes, but it’s an important preventative measure as there is a Statute of Limitations on tax disputes. If there is a dispute over back taxes, you start running out the clock on the Statute of Limitations if you file. If you don’t, the IRS can conduct a personal audit at any time in the future and you’ll be liable if they decide against you.
> 
> The IRS provides a tax guide for citizens living abroad, this can be found here. There are also some basic facts you need to know about taxation in 2012.
> 
> Tax liabilities if you are a US citizen living abroad. : Expat Info Desk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _* I am an American living and working abroad. Do I need to file a US tax return?*_
> 
> Regardless of where you live now, being a United States citizen requires that you file a yearly tax return with the IRS. Green card holders and all US citizens are required to file a US return, no matter where they live, as long as their income (earned in the US and abroad) is just over $9,000. Many people wrongly assume that because they have never owed money to the IRS, they simply don't have to file.  *Earning anything over $9,350.00 does require you to file, however.  The US has treaties with many foreign countries that will reduce or even eliminate actual owed tax*. You cannot, however, take advantage of these benefits if you don't file.
> 
> US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are not legally required to do so if you don’t owe U.S. taxes...*
> 
> Argument over, you lose. Sorry... try again later.
Click to expand...



LOL

YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM, NOT THE DOUBLE TAXATION BS YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT THOUGH


Smackdown Bubs



*Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case"*




Weird how your entire premise was demolished Bubs


The Swiss bank UBS AG became embroiled in controversy starting in 2008 when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation made a formal request to travel to Switzerland to probe a multi-billion-dollar tax evasion case involving the bank



The investigation had, in part, been prompted by disclosures made by Bradley Birkenfeld, a former UBS banker in Switzerland, who testified to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that *UBS had directed its North American sales force to recruit U.S. taxpayers by offering them access to offshore financial vehicles to hide their assets and avoid taxes*

The events sparked by Birkenfeld's whistleblowing and resulting controversy created unprecedented pressure on UBS, the Swiss banking industry and the Swiss government from the U.S. and European Union members* eager to clawback delinquent taxes from assets their taxpayers had stashed in offshore accounts maintained by UBS and other Swiss banks.* The controversy eventually led to the erosion of Switzerland's fabled bank secrecy laws.

The day after settling its criminal case on February 19, 2009, the* U.S. government filed a civil suit against UBS to reveal the names of all 52,000 American customers, alleging that the bank and these customers conspired to defraud the IRS and federal government of legitimately owed tax revenue*

UBS tax evasion controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Offshore Tax-Avoidance and IRS Compliance Efforts*

*UBS Clients*

Feb. 18, 2015 — Georges Briguet pleaded guilty to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the IRS. For tax years 2001 through 2010, Briguet filed false federal income tax returns on which he failed to report his foreign financial accounts, *failed to report any income earned thereon and failed to pay any taxes on such foreign income.*


*MANY, MANY, MANY MORE HERE BUBS:*


Offshore Tax-Avoidance and IRS Compliance Efforts


*Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes - Talking Points*

*Schemes*

The Abusive Tax Scheme Program is concerned about taxpayers who exploit secrecy laws of offshore jurisdictions in an *attempt to conceal assets and income subject to tax* by the United States.


Some different types of entities and schemes being used in Abusive Offshore Tax Schemes include:

Foreign trusts
Foreign corporations
Foreign (offshore) partnerships, LLCs and LLPs
International Business Companies (IBCs)
Offshore private annuities
Private banking (U.S. and offshore)
Personal investment companies
Captive insurance companies
Offshore bank accounts and credit cards
Related-party loans


Abusive schemes usually create structures making it appear that a nonresident alien or foreign entity is the owner of assets and income, when in fact and substance,* true ownership remains with a U.S. taxpayer.*

Taxpayers may utilize a variety of devices to conceal transfers of *money or other property to a foreign entity, where the income it generates may be hidden.* The simplest method of diverting income is sending skimmed income to an offshore account or entity.


*...Citizens and residents of the United States are taxed on their worldwide income.*

*Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes - Talking Points*



*LOL*


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are to high and taxing income is theft.  We should have a 4 percent consumption tax and that's it. Then government would need to cut spending.  Spending is the real problem and the idiot progressives who demand more because they hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4%? LOL, Somalia here we come, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate your kids? You must because you are leaving them crushing debt in a country that is not Better for them then it was as for you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was the Dems who gutted tax revenues as they gutted taxes for the rich AND then ramped up spending on the credit card *shaking head*
> 
> Fukkn morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow .... total lack of reality.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, because cutting taxes for the rich brings in more revenues in right wing "reality" right Bubs? lol


----------



## dcraelin

dblack said:


> I think the tax code should be used as a way to scapegoat and punish people who fall out of favor with the majority.



cute,.....but this country is racing towards the debt levels of Greece ...and bankruptcy....we need the rich to pay more to pay down this debt.....

that is really the only way to keep this economy moving while at the same time paying down the debt.........a general increase in taxes on the less well off will hurt economic activity.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...



Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such. 

It's entirely two different things.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
Click to expand...



Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs


*Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*

*If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.

Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.

*Hiding Income Offshore

 Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *


*Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*

*You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.

Income from Abroad is Taxable


STUPID FUK


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case"



Again... you are talking about *earning money* in another country. The expat tax is specifically regarding expatriates who no longer live in the US or claim US citizenship but they are earning incomes in a foreign country. Clearly, I still live in the US, and I am still a citizen. I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which gains dividend value each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
Click to expand...



*Tax Treaty Overview*

The United States has income tax treaties with a number of foreign countries. Under these treaties, residents (not necessarily citizens) of foreign countries are taxed at a reduced rate, or are exempt from U.S. income taxes on certain items of income they receive from sources within the United States. These reduced rates and exemptions vary among countries and specific items of income.


...Tax treaties reduce the U.S. taxes of residents of foreign countries. With certain exceptions, they do not reduce the U.S. taxes of U.S. citizens or residents. *U.S. citizens and residents are subject to U.S. income tax on their worldwide income.*



*Tax Treaty Overview*


*HOW FUKKN DUMB ARE YOU?*



*International taxation

LOOK TO THE US


International taxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*
*The Long Arm of the IRS

U.S Tax Treatment of Foreign-Source Income

Taxation of the worldwide income of U.S. taxpayers is the most defining characteristic of U.S. tax policy. The Supreme Court in Cook v. Tait (165 U.S. 42 (1924)) first justified worldwide taxation of U.S. taxpayers. The Court declared that citizens residing abroad are as equally subject to U.S. taxation as those residing here. As a result, foreign-source income is considered gross income under § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (I.R.C.). Foreign-source income is simply added to, and taxed at the same rate as, income derived in the United States.

This policy of worldwide taxation is unique among nations. Most other countries restrict taxation to income derived only from within its territorial borders. Not so in the United States; if you are a U.S. taxpayer, no matter where you are located in the world, the IRS is interested in your income.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...zine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/oct99zg.html


PLEASE ADMIT YOU ARE A DUMBASS AND GET IT OVER WITH, MY BACK HAND IS HURTING BADLY!



*


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... you are talking about *earning money* in another country. The expat tax is specifically regarding expatriates who no longer live in the US or claim US citizenship but they are earning incomes in a foreign country. Clearly, I still live in the US, and I am still a citizen. I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which gains dividend value each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later.
Click to expand...


Gawd you are a stupid fuk


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... you are talking about *earning money* in another country. The expat tax is specifically regarding expatriates who no longer live in the US or claim US citizenship but they are earning incomes in a foreign country. Clearly, I still live in the US, and I am still a citizen. I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which gains dividend value each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later.
Click to expand...


Taxes on World Wide Income

U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*


*Foreign dividends*


Rental Income Earned Abroad


Foreign pension income


* Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*


Foreign royalties


* 
 All other foreign income*


US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Americans think because they’re earning money in another country – and paying that country’s taxes – they have no liability when it comes to their home country and that they are not required to pay expat tax USA. That’s totally not the case"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... you are talking about *earning money* in another country. The expat tax is specifically regarding expatriates who no longer live in the US or claim US citizenship but they are earning incomes in a foreign country. Clearly, I still live in the US, and I am still a citizen. I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which gains dividend value each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later.
Click to expand...


Rolled over IS earning dumbass. You don't have a dime, admit it dumbshit!


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
Click to expand...

They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
Click to expand...


You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy. 

Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong. 

You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
Click to expand...


You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
Click to expand...


Sure, Bubs I believe you, lol



You are a crazy MF I give you that, even your dodges were BS


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
Click to expand...


DUMBASS SAID:

"I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."



Taxes on World Wide Income

U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*

*Foreign dividends*


Rental Income Earned Abroad


Foreign pension income


* Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*


Foreign royalties


* 
All other foreign income*

US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should punish people who *unknowingly* break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
Click to expand...

I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAID:
> 
> "I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on World Wide Income
> 
> U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*
> 
> *Foreign dividends*
> 
> 
> Rental Income Earned Abroad
> 
> 
> Foreign pension income
> 
> 
> * Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*
> 
> 
> Foreign royalties
> 
> 
> *
> All other foreign income*
> 
> US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD
Click to expand...


Apparently, I am not getting through or you are really ignorant when it comes to tax terms. I am not an expatriate living abroad or American citizen earning income abroad. I have an asset that gains dividend *value*... NOT a dividend* income.* I could claim it and receive it as income and it would be subject to tax as an income. Which is why I leave it where it is and don't claim it. 

Again--- I understand all the IRS rules on INCOME... this is *NOT* INCOME. You don't seem to understand the difference and I don't frankly have time to explain it anymore. I've tried... you seem to be stubbornly mired in your own ignorance, kind of like you are about your politics.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?
> 
> 
> Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
Click to expand...


You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE A MORON BUBS, TRUE IF YOU DON'T OWE TAXES ,YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY, BUT ANY MONIES EARNED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IS SUBJECT TO THE US TAX SYSTEM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAID:
> 
> "I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on World Wide Income
> 
> U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*
> 
> *Foreign dividends*
> 
> 
> Rental Income Earned Abroad
> 
> 
> Foreign pension income
> 
> 
> * Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*
> 
> 
> Foreign royalties
> 
> 
> *
> All other foreign income*
> 
> US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, I am not getting through or you are really ignorant when it comes to tax terms. I am not an expatriate living abroad or American citizen earning income abroad. I have an asset that gains dividend *value*... NOT a dividend* income.* I could claim it and receive it as income and it would be subject to tax as an income. Which is why I leave it where it is and don't claim it.
> 
> Again--- I understand all the IRS rules on INCOME... this is *NOT* INCOME. You don't seem to understand the difference and I don't frankly have time to explain it anymore. I've tried... you seem to be stubbornly mired in your own ignorance, kind of like you are about your politics.
Click to expand...


Gawd YOU are dumb

Dividend value???? lol

Weird Google had no such term Bubs

Let's go through this once more Bubba


DUMBASS SAYS:

"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."

BZZ WRONG. 


DUMBASS SAYS:

"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."


BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID) 


DUMBASS SAYS:

"Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."

BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!


BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!




DUMBASS SAYS:

"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.)  *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!



Dumbass says: 

"I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."



Good Bubs, THEN YOU PROB DON'T OWE ANY TAXES ON THE US SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN!



Dumbass says: 

"I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."

COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY


"It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."

BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE  (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!


"My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."


WHAT DOUBLE TAXATION BUBBA I LINKED TO THE 40+ US TREATIES WITH OTHER NATIONS ON US TAX POLICY, IF YOU PAID OTHER TAXES ON IT, YOU GET TO DEDUCT AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT FROM ANY US TAX BURDEN, AND EVEN MORE MOST OF THE TIME (EXTRA DEDUCTIONS FOR FOREIGN CREATED INCOME!!!). If the money is from Germany, you wouldn't owe money to USA taxes


*IF YOU ARE PAYING A TAX LAWYER TO ADVISE YOU ON THIS BUBBA, YOU'D BETTER SUE THE DUMBFUKK, YOU ARE GETTING HOSED, AS WELL AS BREAKING US LAW BY NOT REPORTING INCOME/ASSETS OFFSHORE!! *

*Is this a Tea-Baggerstan lawyer or US lawyer Bubs? *


----------



## Dad2three

OK, CROWD, WHICH OF YOU RIGHT WING MORONS "BELIEVE" THAT BOSS DOESN'T NEED TO REPORT INCOME FROM OFFSHORE? Dividends? Assets?   That he's taxed again on the income if he's already paid taxes in Germany (without being to offset those taxes paid)?  


Yet Boss wants to tell US how to get a better tax environment and more jobs and he doesn't understand basic us law????? lol

COME ON CROWD, LINE UP BEHIND BOSS, LET'S SHOW HIM YOUR SUPPORT BUBBA'S!!


NEXT


----------



## Dad2three

It's like the right wing Klowns who think a small Biz pays taxes on the gross versus ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME (deduct costs, labor, materials, etc) . I WISH THERE WERE SOME SMART RIGHT WINGERS IN THE TEA-BAGGERSTAN  , Sadly it appears NOT


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should profile people based on their inability to speak fluent English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
Click to expand...

You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are claimed as earnings in the US. That's the part you're not comprehending. As long as the dividends are left alone in Germany and not claimed as US income, they are not subject to US taxation. The money was earned in Germany not the US. The US can't tax me on money I earn elsewhere unless I bring it to the United States and claim it as income. THEN it can be taxed regardless of where it was earned or otherwise taxed. If I live in the US and receive a dividend check from my German assets, those are taxable income. That is what this stuff you keep posting is talking about and you think it means my income in other countries that is not subject to US taxation, as it is not earned income in the US, nor is it being claimed as such.
> 
> It's entirely two different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAID:
> 
> "I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on World Wide Income
> 
> U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*
> 
> *Foreign dividends*
> 
> 
> Rental Income Earned Abroad
> 
> 
> Foreign pension income
> 
> 
> * Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*
> 
> 
> Foreign royalties
> 
> 
> *
> All other foreign income*
> 
> US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, I am not getting through or you are really ignorant when it comes to tax terms. I am not an expatriate living abroad or American citizen earning income abroad. I have an asset that gains dividend *value*... NOT a dividend* income.* I could claim it and receive it as income and it would be subject to tax as an income. Which is why I leave it where it is and don't claim it.
> 
> Again--- I understand all the IRS rules on INCOME... this is *NOT* INCOME. You don't seem to understand the difference and I don't frankly have time to explain it anymore. I've tried... you seem to be stubbornly mired in your own ignorance, kind of like you are about your politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd YOU are dumb
> 
> Dividend value???? lol
> 
> Weird Google had no such term Bubs
> 
> Let's go through this once more Bubba
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.)  *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> 
> 
> Good Bubs, THEN YOU PROB DON'T OWE ANY TAXES ON THE US SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE  (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> WHAT DOUBLE TAXATION BUBBA I LINKED TO THE 40+ US TREATIES WITH OTHER NATIONS ON US TAX POLICY, IF YOU PAID OTHER TAXES ON IT, YOU GET TO DEDUCT AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT FROM ANY US TAX BURDEN, AND EVEN MORE MOST OF THE TIME (EXTRA DEDUCTIONS FOR FOREIGN CREATED INCOME!!!). If the money is from Germany, you wouldn't owe money to USA taxes
> 
> 
> *IF YOU ARE PAYING A TAX LAWYER TO ADVISE YOU ON THIS BUBBA, YOU'D BETTER SUE THE DUMBFUKK, YOU ARE GETTING HOSED, AS WELL AS BREAKING US LAW BY NOT REPORTING INCOME/ASSETS OFFSHORE!! *
> 
> *Is this a Tea-Baggerstan lawyer or US lawyer Bubs? *
Click to expand...


You know... I am starting to think you want to fuck. It's like that scene from High Plains Drifter, where the woman intentionally runs into the Man With No Name and he tells her "There's no need for all that, if you want to get acquainted, why don't you just say so?" 

Is that it, Dumb2three? You want to get acquainted? I think that's it... I think you have a boy crush. 

Again-- I have an asset. There is no 'income' until I receive income. I don't know how else to put it. As long as the asset remains untouched, it can't be taxed as income. It was already taxed as income when it was made. The interest it earns is compounded... I don't claim it... it's not income until I claim it as income. If I receive the interest as a dividend, it becomes taxable income. Granted, some people do receive their interest dividend as income and they think because it is in Germany they don't owe US tax on it but as you have shown, they do. You are actually making my point. You know, the reason I presented this example in the first place, a couple of pages back? 

I can't claim it as income without having to pay US income tax. I wish I could claim it, I'd love to bring it home and use it to start a business, but I don't want to lose 28% of it by doing so. There are tens of thousands of people like me who have a wealth asset abroad. These total around $10 trillion worldwide. That is money that could easily be brought back to the US and used to create new jobs, new industry, new commerce... but we have little socialist morons like you who have a hard-on to tax no matter if you can or not. This thread proves that... you want to tax me for something that isn't even income, isn't claimed as income, isn't subject to tax as income. You want to argue 'til the cows come home that I somehow owe US income tax on non-income, non-taxable assets. 

But ultimately, I think this is about you having a boy crush on me and wanting to fuck. It's why you're following me around the board, intentionally bumping into me and acting all infuriated. You need a good old fashioned romp in the barn to teach you some manners.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUENT? They didn't speak a WORD of English Bubs
> 
> This is where you wingnutters lose, and lose BIG, it's called HONESTY, EMPLOYERS KNOWINGLY HIRE PEOPLE NOT ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE US, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LESS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
Click to expand...



Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAID:
> 
> "I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on World Wide Income
> 
> U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*
> 
> *Foreign dividends*
> 
> 
> Rental Income Earned Abroad
> 
> 
> Foreign pension income
> 
> 
> * Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*
> 
> 
> Foreign royalties
> 
> 
> *
> All other foreign income*
> 
> US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, I am not getting through or you are really ignorant when it comes to tax terms. I am not an expatriate living abroad or American citizen earning income abroad. I have an asset that gains dividend *value*... NOT a dividend* income.* I could claim it and receive it as income and it would be subject to tax as an income. Which is why I leave it where it is and don't claim it.
> 
> Again--- I understand all the IRS rules on INCOME... this is *NOT* INCOME. You don't seem to understand the difference and I don't frankly have time to explain it anymore. I've tried... you seem to be stubbornly mired in your own ignorance, kind of like you are about your politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd YOU are dumb
> 
> Dividend value???? lol
> 
> Weird Google had no such term Bubs
> 
> Let's go through this once more Bubba
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.)  *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> 
> 
> Good Bubs, THEN YOU PROB DON'T OWE ANY TAXES ON THE US SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE  (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> WHAT DOUBLE TAXATION BUBBA I LINKED TO THE 40+ US TREATIES WITH OTHER NATIONS ON US TAX POLICY, IF YOU PAID OTHER TAXES ON IT, YOU GET TO DEDUCT AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT FROM ANY US TAX BURDEN, AND EVEN MORE MOST OF THE TIME (EXTRA DEDUCTIONS FOR FOREIGN CREATED INCOME!!!). If the money is from Germany, you wouldn't owe money to USA taxes
> 
> 
> *IF YOU ARE PAYING A TAX LAWYER TO ADVISE YOU ON THIS BUBBA, YOU'D BETTER SUE THE DUMBFUKK, YOU ARE GETTING HOSED, AS WELL AS BREAKING US LAW BY NOT REPORTING INCOME/ASSETS OFFSHORE!! *
> 
> *Is this a Tea-Baggerstan lawyer or US lawyer Bubs? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... I am starting to think you want to fuck. It's like that scene from High Plains Drifter, where the woman intentionally runs into the Man With No Name and he tells her "There's no need for all that, if you want to get acquainted, why don't you just say so?"
> 
> Is that it, Dumb2three? You want to get acquainted? I think that's it... I think you have a boy crush.
> 
> Again-- I have an asset. There is no 'income' until I receive income. I don't know how else to put it. As long as the asset remains untouched, it can't be taxed as income. It was already taxed as income when it was made. The interest it earns is compounded... I don't claim it... it's not income until I claim it as income. If I receive the interest as a dividend, it becomes taxable income. Granted, some people do receive their interest dividend as income and they think because it is in Germany they don't owe US tax on it but as you have shown, they do. You are actually making my point. You know, the reason I presented this example in the first place, a couple of pages back?
> 
> I can't claim it as income without having to pay US income tax. I wish I could claim it, I'd love to bring it home and use it to start a business, but I don't want to lose 28% of it by doing so. There are tens of thousands of people like me who have a wealth asset abroad. These total around $10 trillion worldwide. That is money that could easily be brought back to the US and used to create new jobs, new industry, new commerce... but we have little socialist morons like you who have a hard-on to tax no matter if you can or not. This thread proves that... you want to tax me for something that isn't even income, isn't claimed as income, isn't subject to tax as income. You want to argue 'til the cows come home that I somehow owe US income tax on non-income, non-taxable assets.
> 
> But ultimately, I think this is about you having a boy crush on me and wanting to fuck. It's why you're following me around the board, intentionally bumping into me and acting all infuriated. You need a good old fashioned romp in the barn to teach you some manners.
Click to expand...



MAKING YOUR POINT? YOU SAID IF MONEY IS MADE IN GERMANY, IT'S NOT OWED TAXES IN THE US DUMBSHIT, I SHOWED YOU WERE WRONG

YOU SAID THE US CAN'T TAX MONEY MADE IN OTHER NATIONS, UNLESS IT WAS BROUGHT BACK INTO THE US AND YOU WERE WRONG


YOU CLAIM SOME "DIVIDEND VALUE" AS IF THAT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING, LOL


NOW YOU CLAIM YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT? LOL

Bubba, IF you have an "assett" you NEED to inform the treasury, it's LAW, now IF you meant you have stocks or bonds appreciating, true you don't need to pay taxes UNTIL you sell it, BUT still must notify the Gov't about it


YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD PAY TAXES IN GERMANY, THEN IF BROUGHT BACK INTO THE US, YOU'D BE TAXED AGAIN, I SHOWED YOU THROUGH IRS AND OTHER CREDIBLE LINKS, THAT'S BS!    

In general the US only "double taxes' Corps (because they use thing like the "Irish double dutch", tax avoidance (Apple puts it's "intellectual" property there to pay 5% Corp taxes BUT would owe 30%  (not 35% to bring the rest back!!!)

We also double tax TAX HAVENS for individuals, BUT NEVER to exceed the top marginal US rates TOTAL

IF you had money in Germany, you could pull it out TOMORROW and not owe ANY US taxes I bet since Germany's tax is higher! 


But we ALL know you don't REALLY have ten cents to rub together, like MOST Tea Baggerstaners!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd  YOU are a fukn moron Bubs
> 
> 
> *Many United States (U.S.) citizens and resident aliens receive income from foreign sources. *There have been recent reports about the interest of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein. *The interest of the IRS, however, extends beyond accounts in Liechtenstein to accounts anywhere in the world. Consequently, the IRS reminds you to report your worldwide income on your U.S. tax return.*
> 
> *If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from all sources within and outside of the U.S.* This is true whether or not you receive a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement,  a Form 1099 (Information Return) or the foreign equivalents. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income for more information.
> 
> Additionally, if you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate and gift tax returns and for paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are living in the U.S. or abroad.
> 
> *Hiding Income Offshore
> 
> Not reporting income from foreign sources may be a crime. *
> 
> 
> *Consequences for Evading Taxes on Foreign Source Income*
> 
> *You will face serious consequences if the IRS finds you have unreported income or undisclosed foreign financial accounts. * These consequences can include not only the additional taxes, but also substantial penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment.
> 
> Income from Abroad is Taxable
> 
> 
> STUPID FUK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... when you go to all the trouble of making fonts big and bold, it doesn't do anything but discourage people from reading your post. It is actually very annoying and childish. Almost goofy.
> 
> Also, the petty ad homs to lead off every single post and to conclude every post, is redundant. I understand you think I am a "stupid fuk" ...it's understood. Okay? That doesn't make you right about anything and it is not winning this argument for you. I know that you might think that... but you're wrong.
> 
> You continue to post IRS warnings about claiming income from foreign sources. I have never once said that I claimed earned income from a foreign source and didn't pay my taxes or didn't owe taxes. I fully understand the tax laws and I pay a lawyer a very nice sum of money to advise me on the tax laws pertaining to my situation. I assure you, my tax paperwork is in order. AND... I know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to this. You don't seem to have a ripe clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAID:
> 
> "I do not earn money from Germany. I have a wealth asset in Germany which *gains dividend value* each year and is rolled over into the investment and never claimed as income here or there. It can't be taxed until claimed. I could go to Germany and live on that money and never *earn* a dime and there would be *no* tax liability here in the US, as the money was not ever *earned* in the US or claimed as income in the US. My income tax liability was paid in Germany when I earned it. It doesn't become US taxable earned income, again, later."
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on World Wide Income
> 
> U.S. Permanent Residents (green card holders) a*s well as U.S. Citizens must report each year their income earned anywhere in the world. That means your U.S. income tax return must include:*
> 
> *Foreign dividends*
> 
> 
> Rental Income Earned Abroad
> 
> 
> Foreign pension income
> 
> 
> * Foreign capital gains or losses on stocks, bonds, real estate*
> 
> 
> Foreign royalties
> 
> 
> *
> All other foreign income*
> 
> US INCOME TAXATION OF AMERICANS AND EXPATRIATES LIVING ABROAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, I am not getting through or you are really ignorant when it comes to tax terms. I am not an expatriate living abroad or American citizen earning income abroad. I have an asset that gains dividend *value*... NOT a dividend* income.* I could claim it and receive it as income and it would be subject to tax as an income. Which is why I leave it where it is and don't claim it.
> 
> Again--- I understand all the IRS rules on INCOME... this is *NOT* INCOME. You don't seem to understand the difference and I don't frankly have time to explain it anymore. I've tried... you seem to be stubbornly mired in your own ignorance, kind of like you are about your politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd YOU are dumb
> 
> Dividend value???? lol
> 
> Weird Google had no such term Bubs
> 
> Let's go through this once more Bubba
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.)  *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I can't bring that money to the US to start up my business until I pay taxes on it in the US. It's never been claimed here as income, as I made it there in Germany where it remains. I paid the Germans their share back when I made it."
> 
> 
> 
> Good Bubs, THEN YOU PROB DON'T OWE ANY TAXES ON THE US SINCE GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN!
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE  (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> WHAT DOUBLE TAXATION BUBBA I LINKED TO THE 40+ US TREATIES WITH OTHER NATIONS ON US TAX POLICY, IF YOU PAID OTHER TAXES ON IT, YOU GET TO DEDUCT AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT FROM ANY US TAX BURDEN, AND EVEN MORE MOST OF THE TIME (EXTRA DEDUCTIONS FOR FOREIGN CREATED INCOME!!!). If the money is from Germany, you wouldn't owe money to USA taxes
> 
> 
> *IF YOU ARE PAYING A TAX LAWYER TO ADVISE YOU ON THIS BUBBA, YOU'D BETTER SUE THE DUMBFUKK, YOU ARE GETTING HOSED, AS WELL AS BREAKING US LAW BY NOT REPORTING INCOME/ASSETS OFFSHORE!! *
> 
> *Is this a Tea-Baggerstan lawyer or US lawyer Bubs? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... I am starting to think you want to fuck. It's like that scene from High Plains Drifter, where the woman intentionally runs into the Man With No Name and he tells her "There's no need for all that, if you want to get acquainted, why don't you just say so?"
> 
> Is that it, Dumb2three? You want to get acquainted? I think that's it... I think you have a boy crush.
> 
> Again-- I have an asset. There is no 'income' until I receive income. I don't know how else to put it. As long as the asset remains untouched, it can't be taxed as income. It was already taxed as income when it was made. The interest it earns is compounded... I don't claim it... it's not income until I claim it as income. If I receive the interest as a dividend, it becomes taxable income. Granted, some people do receive their interest dividend as income and they think because it is in Germany they don't owe US tax on it but as you have shown, they do. You are actually making my point. You know, the reason I presented this example in the first place, a couple of pages back?
> 
> I can't claim it as income without having to pay US income tax. I wish I could claim it, I'd love to bring it home and use it to start a business, but I don't want to lose 28% of it by doing so. There are tens of thousands of people like me who have a wealth asset abroad. These total around $10 trillion worldwide. That is money that could easily be brought back to the US and used to create new jobs, new industry, new commerce... but we have little socialist morons like you who have a hard-on to tax no matter if you can or not. This thread proves that... you want to tax me for something that isn't even income, isn't claimed as income, isn't subject to tax as income. You want to argue 'til the cows come home that I somehow owe US income tax on non-income, non-taxable assets.
> 
> But ultimately, I think this is about you having a boy crush on me and wanting to fuck. It's why you're following me around the board, intentionally bumping into me and acting all infuriated. You need a good old fashioned romp in the barn to teach you some manners.
Click to expand...




Nah, I just enjoy showing how moronic right wingers are, especially the low informed like YOU Bubs! 


Damn my backhand hurts from slapping you around though!


----------



## ScienceRocks

1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
3. Invest in our own country


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> YOU SAID IF MONEY IS MADE IN GERMANY, IT'S NOT OWED TAXES IN THE US



I am *making money* in Germany every day. I don't owe taxes on it in the US because it's not *taxable income.* You keep showing where I do have to pay taxes on it if I claim it as income and repatriate it... thanks for showing that is a fact. That was my point.


----------



## Boss

Matthew said:


> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country



I agree with all but #2.

I would rather eliminate federal income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. We are a consumerist nation. It makes sense for us to fund our government through what we purchase instead of a penalty on what we earn.

If we are going to try and keep an income tax, we have to broaden the base. More people need to be paying taxes at the bottom. We would create far more revenue that way than increasing top marginal tax rates. As for "loopholes" that's another brilliant thing about going to a consumer tax, it eliminates all loopholes forever. Thing of the past. However, if we are going to keep the current system, we need to objectively look at these "loopholes" one by one. Some of them are in place because they serve a vital and valid function, they solve a legitimate problem we had at one point, they address an issue we were having at some time... are these concerns still valid? We don't know, there is never much discussion about that... it's just this emotive rush to cut loopholes.

I think before we take the ax to loopholes in general, we need to consider if it's going to close down farms or cause massive foreclosures... that would seem a sensible approach, right?


----------



## Andylusion

Matthew said:


> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country



You can't force people to invest in our own country.

And especially when you raise taxes and close loop holes, why would I invest here, so you can take most of my earnings?

I'm going to invest where I can make money... and you know.... keep it.

And raising tariffs will kill businesses at home.  The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs.    No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to invest in our own country.
> 
> And especially when you raise taxes and close loop holes, why would I invest here, so you can take most of my earnings?
> 
> I'm going to invest where I can make money... and you know.... keep it.
> 
> And raising tariffs will kill businesses at home.  The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs.    No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
Click to expand...

what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
Click to expand...


Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.

"Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"


----------



## danielpalos

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
Click to expand...

that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.

Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
Click to expand...


Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
Click to expand...

from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do that because they know they have implicit permission to do so from Washington.  It's against the law to do it, so obviously passing more laws is pointless unless current law is enforced.  "Sanctuary cities"?  Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
Click to expand...

That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.


----------



## hadit

Matthew said:


> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country


You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
Click to expand...

I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.


----------



## ScienceRocks

So civilization = communism to you loserterian assholes. LOL...People been paying taxes to government for about ten thousand years to have roads, police, military and investment.  It isn't communism and that is a fact.

The rich shouldn't be cheating the system.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU SAID IF MONEY IS MADE IN GERMANY, IT'S NOT OWED TAXES IN THE US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am *making money* in Germany every day. I don't owe taxes on it in the US because it's not *taxable income.* You keep showing where I do have to pay taxes on it if I claim it as income and repatriate it... thanks for showing that is a fact. That was my point.
Click to expand...


Weird, so you lied about making money and paying taxes on it in Germany BUT that if you brought it back to the US you'd owe MORE money, that';s why you don't want to bring it back, DOUBLE TAXATION?


Bubba YOU NEW PREMISE is you are creating WEALTH not money, not taxable income, BUT YOUR ATTORNEY NEEDS TO BE FIRED TO TELL YOU THE US HAS NO CLAIM TO ANYTHING, lol


But YOUR POINT was again:


*DUMBASS SAYS:

"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*

BZZ WRONG. 


*DUMBASS SAYS:

"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*


BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID) 


DUMBASS SAYS:

"Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."

BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!


BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!




DUMBASS SAYS:

"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!


Dumbass says: 

"I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."

COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY


"It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."

BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!


"My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."


YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL



*Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
Click to expand...

Communist not communal.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScienceRocks

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I guess you think paying taxes for infrastructure, police and for basic services is a thing of communism. Goddamn, you're a fucking laughable.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all but #2.
> 
> I would rather eliminate federal income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. We are a consumerist nation. It makes sense for us to fund our government through what we purchase instead of a penalty on what we earn.
> 
> If we are going to try and keep an income tax, we have to broaden the base. More people need to be paying taxes at the bottom. We would create far more revenue that way than increasing top marginal tax rates. As for "loopholes" that's another brilliant thing about going to a consumer tax, it eliminates all loopholes forever. Thing of the past. However, if we are going to keep the current system, we need to objectively look at these "loopholes" one by one. Some of them are in place because they serve a vital and valid function, they solve a legitimate problem we had at one point, they address an issue we were having at some time... are these concerns still valid? We don't know, there is never much discussion about that... it's just this emotive rush to cut loopholes.
> 
> I think before we take the ax to loopholes in general, we need to consider if it's going to close down farms or cause massive foreclosures... that would seem a sensible approach, right?
Click to expand...




DUMBASS SAYS:

"If we are going to try and keep an income tax, we have to broaden the base. More people need to be paying taxes at the bottom. We would create far more revenue that way than increasing top marginal tax rates."

Yes BECAUSE the bottom* HALF of America, the 68 MILLION FAMILIES* (who avg less than $15,000 per family) have almost half the income of the* 1.3+ million FAMILIES at the top 1% *of US who make nearly twice as much and AVG over a million plus PER FAMILY!   


*SHAKING HEAD*

The entertainment YOU provide Bubs, lol

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to invest in our own country.
> 
> And especially when you raise taxes and close loop holes, why would I invest here, so you can take most of my earnings?
> 
> I'm going to invest where I can make money... and you know.... keep it.
> 
> And raising tariffs will kill businesses at home.  The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs.    No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
Click to expand...



You a US citizen Bubs? NO MATTER WHERE YOU INVEST, YOU WOULD OWE US TAXES. It's called US GOV'T POLICY DUMMY

Weird, the largest economy in the world, and right wingers "think" people are going to pull that fetishists Galt crap



"No country has ever protected itself into prosperity"




*(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics*


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world.   Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as *contrary to classical economics*. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.




*Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.*


 The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe.* The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.*


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
Click to expand...


You mean like they do in Greece?
Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing out the "Worker's Paradise."


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
Click to expand...


As opposed to CONservatives/GOP policy


----------



## bedowin62

YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Gov't that was captured by the "job creators' themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.
Click to expand...



Weird, I thought SCOTUS said what the Dems passed and the GOP took to them to court on, CIT UNITED, was a start? Sadly I guess I was wrong, the Dems don't REALLY want to have reform, lol


----------



## ScienceRocks

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
Click to expand...



There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue. 

Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
Click to expand...


Weird, Obama proposed that nearly 3 years ago, going from 35% to 28% but the GOP SAID NO? HMM

Why would the Corps who pay EFFECTIVE tax rates of 12% today, bring jobs back to the US? They haven't had this low of tax burden in 40 years? PLEASE tell me more on this thing about taxes and job creation, how'd Dubya/GOP tax cuts create jobs again??? lol


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The right wing is Amoral NOT American's!


----------



## bedowin62

WHEN THE LAST liberal gazillionaire like Oprah or obama's buddy warren buffet gives up their last million i'll stop laughing at Dad2Three


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> So civilization = communism to you loserterian assholes. LOL...People been paying taxes to government for about ten thousand years to have roads, police, military and investment.  It isn't communism and that is a fact.
> 
> The rich shouldn't be cheating the system.



Proving that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry.
Taxes which pay for roads, police and military are not exclusive to communism and not all (nor only) "the rich" cheat the system. One day if you grow to be a man you will look back at what you were here and laugh at the silliness you said and believed.


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??




Happened from 1930-1975...Biggest middle class, best educational system and we lead the world in most everything...Go cry a river.


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, Obama proposed that nearly 3 years ago, going from 35% to 28% but the GOP SAID NO? HMM
> 
> Why would the Corps who pay EFFECTIVE tax rates of 12% today, bring jobs back to the US? They haven't had this low of tax burden in 40 years? PLEASE tell me more on this thing about taxes and job creation, how'd Dubya/GOP tax cuts create jobs again??? lol
Click to expand...

 

Weird; obama has ben able to jam through any number of other things the GOP objected to; raising taxes on the top brackets, obamacare, lily ledbetter, the iran deal....etc

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right wing is Amoral NOT American's!
Click to expand...


Ideological idiocy. Your POV is amoral.


----------



## bedowin62

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happened from 1930-1975...Biggest middle class, best educational system and we lead the world in most everything...Go cry a river.
Click to expand...

 


what year is it?

 the only one crying is you idiot; i'm laughing; for the reason i stated above


----------



## Dad2three

Matthew said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
Click to expand...


BUT the Greece has LOTS of debt they put on the credit card thanks to Banksters who got "creative" to slip them into the EU AND Greece has one of the highest "black market" economies in the world, in right wing DREAM WORLD that means their tax system is missing about 25%-35% of revenues OWED. It's right wingers dream paradise!


----------



## bedowin62

.......................because it's still 1930- 1975


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## SAYIT

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The company I currently work for would be out of business if you raised tariffs. No country has ever protected itself into prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
Click to expand...


Yean ... and as the 20th Century showed, it works sooo well.


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BUT the Greece has LOTS of debt they put on the credit card thanks to Banksters who got "creative" to slip them into the EU AND Greece has one of the highest "black market" economies in the world, in right wing DREAM WORLD that means their tax system is missing about 25%-35% of revenues OWED. It's right wingers dream paradise!
Click to expand...

 

nobody made them borrow the money dullard.
seriously all they had to do was live within their means you idiot


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
Click to expand...


Don't understand ANYTHING about Greece huh? Hint it's more like the "free market" economy you Klowns want than the US, it's a HUGE black market underground economy (in order to skip those taxes CONservatives HATE) , AND the Bankster got "creative" to hide AND INCREASE Greece's debt to get them into the EU

Keep using the rights usual bumper sticker thinking to complex issues however Bubs


----------



## bedowin62

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! i borrowed more than i can pay back; and the mean ol people want their money back!!!!


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!


----------



## bedowin62

Again
 did GREECE not know how banks work dullard?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if we just tax the wealthiest; and let the rest invest here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yean ... and as the 20th Century showed, it works sooo well.
Click to expand...



Oh you mean CONservative policy that hoses EVERYONE but the 1%? Hell we knew that way back in the 18th century, why do you think the Founders didn't go with that "free market" thing Adam Smith was selling AND dumped that libertarian light document, the Articles of Confederation (small states rights thing for BIG FEDERAL GOV'T! ?


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
Click to expand...


What Greeks did with OPM is typical of how left-led societies operate and where it inevitably leads. There's even a new name for it:

INEPTOCRACY -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers


----------



## ScienceRocks

bedowin62 said:


> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! i borrowed more than i can pay back; and the mean ol people want their money back!!!!
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!



If you don't want to pay taxes,,,well, please don't use our roads, police or anything that I pay for...It is called being a bum.


----------



## bedowin62

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!1  i'm one of the oldest civilizations on the planet and i dont know banks do things!!


----------



## SAYIT

Matthew said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happened from 1930-1975...Biggest middle class, best educational system and we lead the world in most everything...Go cry a river.
Click to expand...


From 1930-1940 the US was mired in the Great Depression and you invariably ignore the global reality of post WW2 economies.
We were the only industrial game in town.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right wing is Amoral NOT American's!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideological idiocy. Your POV is amoral.
Click to expand...


Yep, wanting to feed the hungry children, wanting everyone legally eligible to vote to vote, wanting those who by FARRRR make the most money should step up like they used too and help pay down the debt that helped them create the amount of concentrated wealth at the top today, is "amoral" in right wing world *shaking head*


----------



## bedowin62

you are embarrassing yourselves making excuses for a country whose left-wing policies simply bankrupted their nation. they want to be socialist until it is time to pay WITH THEIR TAXES for all the goodies

just pathetic, but so typical of the American Left


----------



## bedowin62

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happened from 1930-1975...Biggest middle class, best educational system and we lead the world in most everything...Go cry a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1930-1940 the US was mired in the Great Depression and you invariably ignore the global reality of post WW2 economies.
> We were the only industrial game in town.
Click to expand...

 

and 800 million or so chinese were still riding around on bicycles wearing grey pantsuits

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN; what boring stupidity. the Left will never get the high tax rates they want; if they did who would contribute to THEIR $30,000 PER PLATE DNC FUNDRAISERS??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happened from 1930-1975...Biggest middle class, best educational system and we lead the world in most everything...Go cry a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1930-1940 the US was mired in the Great Depression and you invariably ignore the global reality of post WW2 economies.
> We were the only industrial game in town.
Click to expand...



Yep after a decade where Harding/Coolidge cheered on the credit bubble the Banksters created, the US went into ANOTHER CONservative depression caused by the "free market" 

Weird though FDR listened to the deficit hawks in 1937 (after he almost halved the unemployment rate) and cut spending 10% like the CONservatives wanted, took US back into the GOP's great depression

Only industrial game in town? 90% of industry outside the US was rebuilt by 1955, 100% by 1960? HMM

Oh yeah, but EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" was OVER DOUBLE what they are today (MORE THAN triple on the REALLY rich!)


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Increase Tariffs to protect businesses here at home and make others build here.
> 2. Raise taxes and close loop holes
> 3. Invest in our own country
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Greeks did with OPM is typical of how left-led societies operate and where it inevitably leads. There's even a new name for it:
> 
> INEPTOCRACY -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
Click to expand...


Oh goodie, ANOTHER right wing meme based on bumper sticker thinking. WooHooo


----------



## bedowin62

the WORLD is more fair right now; why dont you diversity-loving LWNJs like that?


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Greeks did with OPM is typical of how left-led societies operate and where it inevitably leads. There's even a new name for it:
> 
> INEPTOCRACY -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goodie, ANOTHER right wing meme based on bumper sticker thinking. WooHooo
Click to expand...

 

you mean like "CHANGE"; the ultimate bumper-sticker meme?


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are one-trick ponies. At least you don't try to masquerade your agenda.
> 
> "Eat the rich!" "Kill the banksters!" "Create my Worker's Paradise!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yean ... and as the 20th Century showed, it works sooo well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean CONservative policy that hoses EVERYONE but the 1%?
Click to expand...


America's top 1% pays nearly 40% of all personal federal income tax while the bottom 48% gets a free ride. All those fine interstate highways you use? Relax ... you ain't paying a dime, Princess.


----------



## bedowin62

you have to consider what you debating; who you are debating; a bunch of left-wing idiots talking out of both sides of their mouths; trying to brag that we are so great under this President right now; while at the same time out of the other corner of their mouths crying about how terrible our whole system is.


----------



## bedowin62

We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;

but they're still bragging how great we are doing

consider that when debating these pathetic people


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the government that became big enough and powerful enough that it inevitably attracted money from those seeking influence.  Remove government's ability to force things and you remove corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought SCOTUS said what the Dems passed and the GOP took to them to court on, CIT UNITED, was a start? Sadly I guess I was wrong, the Dems don't REALLY want to have reform, lol
Click to expand...

No, they really don't.  Republicans wanted, for example, to have greater oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Remember that?  Democrats shut it down.  So, you can pull bits and pieces here and there, but they don't eliminate the overall love of Big Business Money democrats have.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right wing is Amoral NOT American's!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideological idiocy. Your POV is amoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, wanting to feed the hungry children, wanting everyone legally eligible to vote to vote, wanting those who by FARRRR make the most money should step up like they used too and help pay down the debt that helped them create the amount of concentrated wealth at the top today, is "amoral" in right wing world *shaking head*
Click to expand...


Ah ... there's my boy. Trying to make your vision of the "Worker's Paradise" sound like paradise is typical of loony lefties but it just doesn't work and has been known to crush the very people about whom you pretend to care.


----------



## SAYIT

bedowin62 said:


> We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;
> 
> but they're still bragging how great we are doing
> 
> consider that when debating these pathetic people



Their vision, agenda and methodology in America is creeping socialism. In lucid moments they know they can't sell the whole package at once but they are always pushing it. The end game is their "Worker's Paradise."


----------



## bedowin62

left-wing leaders are neck-deep in everything their lemmings cry about


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.


----------



## SAYIT

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can accomplish all of those without a single punitive action.  Reducing corporate taxes would bring jobs and business back overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it; and, you don't solve for structural forms of unemployment.  We could solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment under capitalism, by merely employing enough socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they do in Greece?
> Oh, wait ... that is capitalists bailing the "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between investment like r&d, education and infrastructure that grows the economy and what happened in greece. Of course, you're anti-civilization and don't have a clue.
> 
> Simply put Greece didn't invest but was idiotic with shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Greeks did with OPM is typical of how left-led societies operate and where it inevitably leads. There's even a new name for it:
> 
> INEPTOCRACY -   a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goodie, ANOTHER right wing meme based on bumper sticker thinking. WooHooo
Click to expand...


Which is a shining beacon of truth when compared to your screaming loony left meme, Comrade.


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was last millennium; we have better propaganda and rhetoric now.
> 
> Why not simply Tax the Wealthiest into Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official poverty in Heaven would result in maXimal at-will productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yean ... and as the 20th Century showed, it works sooo well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean CONservative policy that hoses EVERYONE but the 1%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America's top 1% pays nearly 40% of all personal federal income tax while the bottom 48% gets a free ride. All those fine interstate highways you use? Relax ... you ain't paying a dime, Princess.
Click to expand...


Income taxes? Oh right that 46% of ALL federal revenues? Sorry sweepea, but interstate highways AREN'T funded solely by income taxes, in fact the majority IS from gas/user taxes that fall mainly on the bottom 99%, oops


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Randian fetish that has NEVER worked anywhere? I don't care the size of Gov't, but want effective Gov't the opposite of the CONservatives/GOP
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought SCOTUS said what the Dems passed and the GOP took to them to court on, CIT UNITED, was a start? Sadly I guess I was wrong, the Dems don't REALLY want to have reform, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they really don't.  Republicans wanted, for example, to have greater oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Remember that?  Democrats shut it down.  So, you can pull bits and pieces here and there, but they don't eliminate the overall love of Big Business Money democrats have.
Click to expand...


Oh right, in right wing "reality", Dems SAYING that GOP's plan to destroy F/F during the ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 GOP HOUSE HEARING WHERE DEMS COULD STOP NOT A SINGLE BILL THE GOP WANTED TO PASS, means the Dems had some super powers to stop Dubya's hosing of F/F later on as HE WAS THE REGULATOR?


BITS AND PIECES HUH? LOL

*Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*

Testimony from Dubya's s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulations' of the GSE's 2004

Mr. BARNEY  Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. *We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.*

OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED

Yeah, Dems supported reform, GOP OPPOSE IT. FACTS BUBBA, TRY IT!


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from each according to his ability to each according to his need; what a communal concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Communist not communal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right wing is Amoral NOT American's!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideological idiocy. Your POV is amoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, wanting to feed the hungry children, wanting everyone legally eligible to vote to vote, wanting those who by FARRRR make the most money should step up like they used too and help pay down the debt that helped them create the amount of concentrated wealth at the top today, is "amoral" in right wing world *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah ... there's my boy. Trying to make your vision of the "Worker's Paradise" sound like paradise is typical of loony lefties but it just doesn't work and has been known to crush the very people about whom you pretend to care.
Click to expand...



Oh without false premises, distortions and lies, what would wingnutters EVER have Bubba?


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;
> 
> but they're still bragging how great we are doing
> 
> consider that when debating these pathetic people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their vision, agenda and methodology in America is creeping socialism. In lucid moments they know they can't sell the whole package at once but they are always pushing it. The end game is their "Worker's Paradise."
Click to expand...


No Bubba, that's the rights goal, with the oversight by the 1/10th of 1% who you get on your knees for though!


----------



## bedowin62

all you do is cry and make a fool of yourself Dad2 three
 you're depserate to keep this thread alive; because mean ol rich people need to pay..................

seriously how pathetic


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;
> 
> but they're still bragging how great we are doing
> 
> consider that when debating these pathetic people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their vision, agenda and methodology in America is creeping socialism. In lucid moments they know they can't sell the whole package at once but they are always pushing it. The end game is their "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bubba, that's the rights goal, with the oversight by the 1/10th of 1% who you get on your knees for though!
Click to expand...

 

we have literally millions of pages of "oversight". it's never enough for you idiots.

you want to crush the very people that make the things you want to offer people possible. ......


----------



## bedowin62

* 


Dad2three said:



			Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.

OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
		
Click to expand...

* 


which only means they didnt foresee a complete collapse and a bubble bursting AS IT DID.

THAT DOESNT PROVE REPUBS DIDNT TRY TO DO SOMETHING

 it proves REPUBS DID TRY, and it still actually shows WHAT THE POSTER SAID TO BEGIN WITH; that conserns in the housing market WERE BROUGHT UP BY REPUBLICANS; and DOWNPLAYED BY DEMOCRATS


----------



## bedowin62

Barney Frank said " THERE'S NOTHING WRONG AT FANNIE MAE"
 which is of course a whole different thing than Snow saying he didnt see an "imminent danger to the financial system". one is saying "NOTHING IS WRONG", THE OTHER IS SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.

you lose again Dad2; you just keep proving left-wingers are never man enough to admit their are wron; or their leaders were wrong


----------



## Boss

bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to get it, because your masters in the DNC don't want you to have it.  Here's a clue for the terminally dumb.  They SELL influence, and you fall for the fiction that they're mad at the other guys for selling influence.  Useful indeed to them you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought SCOTUS said what the Dems passed and the GOP took to them to court on, CIT UNITED, was a start? Sadly I guess I was wrong, the Dems don't REALLY want to have reform, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they really don't.  Republicans wanted, for example, to have greater oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Remember that?  Democrats shut it down.  So, you can pull bits and pieces here and there, but they don't eliminate the overall love of Big Business Money democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing "reality", Dems SAYING that GOP's plan to destroy F/F during the ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 GOP HOUSE HEARING WHERE DEMS COULD STOP NOT A SINGLE BILL THE GOP WANTED TO PASS, means the Dems had some super powers to stop Dubya's hosing of F/F later on as HE WAS THE REGULATOR?
> 
> 
> BITS AND PIECES HUH? LOL
> 
> *Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*
> 
> Testimony from Dubya's s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulations' of the GSE's 2004
> 
> Mr. BARNEY  Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. *We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.*
> 
> OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
> 
> Yeah, Dems supported reform, GOP OPPOSE IT. FACTS BUBBA, TRY IT!
Click to expand...

You seem to forget the Senate, where democrats stopped McCain's bill to prevent GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged.  Like I said, you can dig up crumbs, but that doesn't change reality.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;
> 
> but they're still bragging how great we are doing
> 
> consider that when debating these pathetic people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their vision, agenda and methodology in America is creeping socialism. In lucid moments they know they can't sell the whole package at once but they are always pushing it. The end game is their "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bubba, that's the rights goal, with the oversight by the 1/10th of 1% who you get on your knees for though!
Click to expand...

The millionaire democrats in government like it that way.  You seem to think they're actually trying to stop it.  So useful.


----------



## dcraelin

andaronjim said:


> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.



we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

dcraelin said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't know that if you tax corporations and businesses, those taxes are passed onto US, so we end up paying that tax anyway?  No Duh.  How about a sales tax, so if a person buys a $10,000,000 boat, that person has to pay $1,000,000.  If someone buys a 10 dollar shirt, he/she pays a dollar in tax?  Very simple, and the government would be flooded in tax revenue.  But we need to do away with welfare, because it always seems that Social Security is going to go bankrupt, but Welfare never does.  If you get rid of welfare, then more people would have to work, being paid, which in turn they pay social security tax, which then in turns makes SS solvent.


----------



## dcraelin

andaronjim said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't know that if you tax corporations and businesses, those taxes are passed onto US, so we end up paying that tax anyway?  No Duh.  How about a sales tax, so if a person buys a $10,000,000 boat, that person has to pay $1,000,000.  If someone buys a 10 dollar shirt, he/she pays a dollar in tax?  Very simple, and the government would be flooded in tax revenue.  But we need to do away with welfare, because it always seems that Social Security is going to go bankrupt, but Welfare never does.  If you get rid of welfare, then more people would have to work, being paid, which in turn they pay social security tax, which then in turns makes SS solvent.
Click to expand...


well that is your assertion, that it is passed through, but even if you're correct, so what??   The goal was simplification. My proposal does accomplish that for many many americans.

Sales taxes can be gummed up with exemptions and loopholes like any other tax....states that rely mainly on sales taxes prove that.  Sales taxes are rather easily shirked too. and they hurt the lower income proportionately more.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

So you don't believe in "technology". Sales tax cannot be shirked as every item purchased has to have a receipt whether it is a business buying or a customer buying.  Isnt that hard to figure that out, also, how can lower income be hurt more when they don't buy as much, so pay less in taxes, while those who buy more pay more in taxes.  Typical of a liberal to FAIL at math.  Go back to school and learn economics, you might be able to understand how economies work then.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

andaronjim said:


> So you don't believe in "technology". Sales tax cannot be shirked as every item purchased has to have a receipt whether it is a business buying or a customer buying.  Isnt that hard to figure that out, also, how can lower income be hurt more when they don't buy as much, so pay less in taxes, while those who buy more pay more in taxes.  Typical of a liberal to FAIL at math.  Go back to school and learn economics, you might be able to understand how economies work then.


Also the politicians who get FREE, gas and food while they are working, would no longer get FREE stuff, as they would have to buy their own.  Start at the top for corruption(eliminate it) and pretty soon, America is back to the land of the free.


----------



## Sallow

Short answer - Yes.
Long Answer - The obscenely wealthy should pay more for everything. From traffic violations to a luxury tax.


----------



## dcraelin

andaronjim said:


> So you don't believe in "technology". Sales tax cannot be shirked as every item purchased has to have a receipt whether it is a business buying or a customer buying.  Isnt that hard to figure that out, also, how can lower income be hurt more when they don't buy as much, so pay less in taxes, while those who buy more pay more in taxes.  Typical of a liberal to FAIL at math.  Go back to school and learn economics, you might be able to understand how economies work then.



whos to say a receipt cant be faked, or ignored, or unreported etc etc.  

Accepted by most economists that sales taxes hurt lower income disproportionately as the rich put more money away in banking accounts, retirement accounts investments.  

also sales taxes are somewhat hidden, no one pays much attention to how much they pay...it could actually be a goad to grow government.....which has arguably been the case in Europe where a modified sales tax is the main funder of most governments.


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> *
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
> 
> OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> which only means they didnt foresee a complete collapse and a bubble bursting AS IT DID.
> 
> THAT DOESNT PROVE REPUBS DIDNT TRY TO DO SOMETHING
> 
> it proves REPUBS DID TRY, and it still actually shows WHAT THE POSTER SAID TO BEGIN WITH; that conserns in the housing market WERE BROUGHT UP BY REPUBLICANS; and DOWNPLAYED BY DEMOCRATS



SINCE WHEN IS THE TREASURY SEC OF DUBYA A "DEM" BUBBA?

WHEN DID DUBYA TURN INTO A DEM?

*Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


*STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
*
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.*

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*



DUBYA FORCED F/F TO PURCHASE $440 BILION IN MBS'S *2003-2008*, DUBYA CHANGED(*2004*) CLINTON RULE THAT FORBID ALLOWING SUBPRIMES TO COUNT TOWARDS SUBPRIME GOALS AND THEN UPPED THEIR GOALS FROM 50% TO 56% (*2004*)

Yeah, i can see how it's the MINORITY MEMBERS OF HOUSE WHO WERE TO BLAME *SHAKING HEAD*


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was* triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*








*WEIRD ALL THAT STUFF DUBYA/GOP DID AFTER THE 2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDALS THE VIDS ARE FROM?? LOL*


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
> 
> OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> which only means they didnt foresee a complete collapse and a bubble bursting AS IT DID.
> 
> THAT DOESNT PROVE REPUBS DIDNT TRY TO DO SOMETHING
> 
> it proves REPUBS DID TRY, and it still actually shows WHAT THE POSTER SAID TO BEGIN WITH; that conserns in the housing market WERE BROUGHT UP BY REPUBLICANS; and DOWNPLAYED BY DEMOCRATS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SINCE WHEN IS THE TREASURY SEC OF DUBYA A "DEM" BUBBA?
> 
> WHEN DID DUBYA TURN INTO A DEM?
> 
> *Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*
> 
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> *STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
> *
> The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
> *
> George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
> 
> Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> DUBYA FORCED F/F TO PURCHASE $440 BILION IN MBS'S *2003-2008*, DUBYA CHANGED(*2004*) CLINTON RULE THAT FORBID ALLOWING SUBPRIMES TO COUNT TOWARDS SUBPRIME GOALS AND THEN UPPED THEIR GOALS FROM 50% TO 56% (*2004*)
> 
> Yeah, i can see how it's the MINORITY MEMBERS OF HOUSE WHO WERE TO BLAME *SHAKING HEAD*
> 
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was* triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WEIRD ALL THAT STUFF DUBYA/GOP DID AFTER THE 2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDALS THE VIDS ARE FROM?? LOL*
Click to expand...


I really appreciate that your posts are consistently formatted, approximately the same length and, most importantly, easy to identify at a glance.


----------



## Dad2three

bedowin62 said:


> Barney Frank said " THERE'S NOTHING WRONG AT FANNIE MAE"
> which is of course a whole different thing than Snow saying he didnt see an "imminent danger to the financial system". one is saying "NOTHING IS WRONG", THE OTHER IS SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.
> 
> you lose again Dad2; you just keep proving left-wingers are never man enough to admit their are wron; or their leaders were wrong




Weird, Barney saying during the F/F ACCOUNTING scandal of *2003-2004 there was nothing wrong with F/F** like there was nothing wrong with AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns  (HINT THREE OF THOSE WERE GONE BY 2010M, 2 OTHERS CHANGED CHARTERS!!!) , WAMU, AND DOZENS OF OTHER BANKS *


OH RIGHT, DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE HADN'T YET STARTED AND DUBYA'S POLICIES THAT HOSE F/F HADN'T GONE FULL APESHIT CRAZY YET

Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, *beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*








I


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.




YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol


----------



## OnePercenter

danielpalos said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has no competition in his imagination.
> That also explains his illegally low tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have competition. I use their weaknesses to promote my business.
> 
> Again, nobody pays tax rates, not even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i pay taxes at a certain rate.
Click to expand...


And what is your 'certain rate?'  Federal Tax Paid ÷ Total Income =


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, so the Dems putting forward reform bills meant what Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> That they knew the bills would go nowhere and they never intended for them to become law, Cletus.  Those with an IQ above room temperature understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, I thought SCOTUS said what the Dems passed and the GOP took to them to court on, CIT UNITED, was a start? Sadly I guess I was wrong, the Dems don't REALLY want to have reform, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they really don't.  Republicans wanted, for example, to have greater oversight and regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Remember that?  Democrats shut it down.  So, you can pull bits and pieces here and there, but they don't eliminate the overall love of Big Business Money democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right, in right wing "reality", Dems SAYING that GOP's plan to destroy F/F during the ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 GOP HOUSE HEARING WHERE DEMS COULD STOP NOT A SINGLE BILL THE GOP WANTED TO PASS, means the Dems had some super powers to stop Dubya's hosing of F/F later on as HE WAS THE REGULATOR?
> 
> 
> BITS AND PIECES HUH? LOL
> 
> *Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*
> 
> Testimony from Dubya's s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulations' of the GSE's 2004
> 
> Mr. BARNEY  Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. *We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.*
> 
> OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
> 
> Yeah, Dems supported reform, GOP OPPOSE IT. FACTS BUBBA, TRY IT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to forget the Senate, where democrats stopped McCain's bill to prevent GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged.  Like I said, you can dig up crumbs, but that doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...


MCCAINS BILL? Oh that bill he signed onto 5 months AFTER it just died on the Senate floor BECAUSE THE GOP couldn't get SENATE LEADER (R)Bill Frist to bring it up for a vote?


Weird, there was BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE BILL THE DEMS GOT PASSED WITH GOP SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE THE SAME YEAR AS "MCSAMES BILL" BUBBA, WHAT HAPPENED?

*
Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation *that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb*. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.*

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005



*Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.*

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News

*WEIRD, DEMS SIGN ONTO A REFORM BILL IN THE HOUSE, BUT THE SENATE HAD A DIFFERENT "REFORM" OF F/F IN MIND, BUT IT WAS THE DEMS FAULT REFORM WAS BLOCKED BY THE GOP??? SERIOUSLY??*


----------



## OnePercenter

Arizona Willie said:


> If businesses don't pay taxes why do cities / states offer them tax breaks to move there?
> 
> If businesses don't pay taxes why do they care how much they are taxed? According to you they don't pay it anyway.
> 
> If businesses don't pay taxes why do they pay armies of lobbiests to get their tax rates cut?
> 
> If businesses don't pay taxes why do they pay armies of tax accountants to jigger their numbers and get them the lowest tax possible?
> 
> BUSINESSES DO PAY TAXES AND THEY COME OUT OF THE PROFITS THAT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO SHAREHOLDERS ( although hardly any business actually pays dividends anymore --- they prefer to hold massive amounts of cash in offshore banks ).
> 
> *==============*
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays tax rates. Not even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps in the same sense that "time doesn't exist" because the past doesn't exist anymore, the future doesn't exist yet and the present takes no amount of time?  Or... in the sense that "reality" doesn't exist... only the illusion we perceive as reality?
> 
> I've argued with liberals before about this and made the very same point... Businesses don't pay tax... the consumer pays the tax. They don't seem to comprehend that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*If businesses don't pay taxes why do cities / states offer them tax breaks to move there?*

To increase jobs and bring in additional sales tax revenue.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have the healthcare system (single payer) the Left wants, the tax rates the Left wants, the regulations the Left wants, the energy polcy the Left wants, .............................NOTHING the left-wingers here crying want;
> 
> but they're still bragging how great we are doing
> 
> consider that when debating these pathetic people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their vision, agenda and methodology in America is creeping socialism. In lucid moments they know they can't sell the whole package at once but they are always pushing it. The end game is their "Worker's Paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bubba, that's the rights goal, with the oversight by the 1/10th of 1% who you get on your knees for though!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The millionaire democrats in government like it that way.  You seem to think they're actually trying to stop it.  So useful.
Click to expand...


YET THEY ARE THE ONES WHO GOT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THROUGH CONGRESS THE GOP FOUGHT AND STOPPED AND THE GOP FIGHT BUFFET RULE OF MIN 30% FED EFFECTIVE TAX. Go figure it's the "Dems" blocking it, lol


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
> 
> OOPS ANOTHER MEME BUSTED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> which only means they didnt foresee a complete collapse and a bubble bursting AS IT DID.
> 
> THAT DOESNT PROVE REPUBS DIDNT TRY TO DO SOMETHING
> 
> it proves REPUBS DID TRY, and it still actually shows WHAT THE POSTER SAID TO BEGIN WITH; that conserns in the housing market WERE BROUGHT UP BY REPUBLICANS; and DOWNPLAYED BY DEMOCRATS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SINCE WHEN IS THE TREASURY SEC OF DUBYA A "DEM" BUBBA?
> 
> WHEN DID DUBYA TURN INTO A DEM?
> 
> *Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*
> 
> 
> 
> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> 
> 
> *STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
> *
> The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
> *
> George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
> 
> Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*
> 
> 
> 
> DUBYA FORCED F/F TO PURCHASE $440 BILION IN MBS'S *2003-2008*, DUBYA CHANGED(*2004*) CLINTON RULE THAT FORBID ALLOWING SUBPRIMES TO COUNT TOWARDS SUBPRIME GOALS AND THEN UPPED THEIR GOALS FROM 50% TO 56% (*2004*)
> 
> Yeah, i can see how it's the MINORITY MEMBERS OF HOUSE WHO WERE TO BLAME *SHAKING HEAD*
> 
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was* triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WEIRD ALL THAT STUFF DUBYA/GOP DID AFTER THE 2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDALS THE VIDS ARE FROM?? LOL*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really appreciate that your posts are consistently formatted, approximately the same length and, most importantly, easy to identify at a glance.
Click to expand...



Your not being able to refute them is noted Bubs


----------



## OnePercenter

Arizona Willie said:


> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> *================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If you were deceived after making an attempt to find the truth, how can you be responsible?


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't know that if you tax corporations and businesses, those taxes are passed onto US, so we end up paying that tax anyway?  No Duh.  How about a sales tax, so if a person buys a $10,000,000 boat, that person has to pay $1,000,000.  If someone buys a 10 dollar shirt, he/she pays a dollar in tax?  Very simple, and the government would be flooded in tax revenue.  But we need to do away with welfare, because it always seems that Social Security is going to go bankrupt, but Welfare never does.  If you get rid of welfare, then more people would have to work, being paid, which in turn they pay social security tax, which then in turns makes SS solvent.
Click to expand...


Gawd another right wing moron who "believes" BS based on hate talk radio/Faux "News"


HINT EVERY ECONOMIST THAT'S CREDIBLE KNOWS ANY FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE (HITS THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS) AND NO SERIOUS STUDIES SHOW EVEN THE "FAIR TAX" (30%) WOULD DO ANYTHING BUT COST THE US TREASURY HUNDREDS OF BILLION A YEAR IN LOST REVENUES! 

GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!


----------



## OnePercenter

RKMBrown said:


> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.



True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.


----------



## Dad2three

OnePercenter said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.
> 
> It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
> Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.
> 
> Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.
> 
> That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.
> 
> *================*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually.
> *
> Excellent! Losing $37 billion in GDP is a small price to pay.
> Build a wall, deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine employers $1M and jail time of ten years for every illegal they knowingly hire. Does the same thing and you don't spend for building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we do that when liberals whine and moan over rights to privacy and anything that could resemble "profiling" in the workplace? So do they ask Pedro for his green card because he looks Mexican or has a Hispanic last name? Do they require all Latinos to prove citizenship as a condition of employment? How exactly do we ensure companies can comply with the law?
> 
> So we impose a $10M fine and 20 years in jail for every illegal they knowingly hire-- as long as they can say they didn't know, what damn difference does it make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were deceived after making an attempt to find the truth, how can you be responsible?
Click to expand...


In right wing "reality" of Trumpster/Palin world view, they weren't speaking "AmeriKKKan"


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
Click to expand...


No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, sure:



*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:

"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*

BZZ WRONG. 


*DUMBASS SAYS:

"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*


BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID) 


DUMBASS SAYS:

"Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."

BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!


BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!




DUMBASS SAYS:

"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!


Dumbass says: 

"I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."

COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY


"It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."

BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!


"My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."


YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL



*Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
Click to expand...


Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
Click to expand...





Sure Bubs, sure:



*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

*"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*

BZZ WRONG.


*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

*"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*


BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)


DUMBASS SAYS:

"Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."

BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!


*DUMBASS SAYS:*

"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!




LOL


----------



## Andylusion

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



The heck are you smoking?






The rich pay the vast vast majority of all taxes.

By any estimation, the rich pay far than any other group relative to their own income.

And by the way, you do know that the charitable giving by the top 1% is greater than the charitable giving by all the other income groups combined, right?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin, you are talking to idiots who think we tax *wealth assets* in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod? 

I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE! 

NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't know that if you tax corporations and businesses, those taxes are passed onto US, so we end up paying that tax anyway?  No Duh.  How about a sales tax, so if a person buys a $10,000,000 boat, that person has to pay $1,000,000.  If someone buys a 10 dollar shirt, he/she pays a dollar in tax?  Very simple, and the government would be flooded in tax revenue.  But we need to do away with welfare, because it always seems that Social Security is going to go bankrupt, but Welfare never does.  If you get rid of welfare, then more people would have to work, being paid, which in turn they pay social security tax, which then in turns makes SS solvent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd another right wing moron who "believes" BS based on hate talk radio/Faux "News"
> 
> 
> HINT EVERY ECONOMIST THAT'S CREDIBLE KNOWS ANY FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE (HITS THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS) AND NO SERIOUS STUDIES SHOW EVEN THE "FAIR TAX" (30%) WOULD DO ANYTHING BUT COST THE US TREASURY HUNDREDS OF BILLION A YEAR IN LOST REVENUES!
> 
> GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!
Click to expand...

Just another commie, who cant understand simple economics.  If you don't like America go move to Cuba, see how well that works out.  You guys are still pissed that Obama promised the redistribution of wealth, but it didn't go to you, but HIS liberal special interest groups, who have made millions and billions, on OUR tax dollars.  Such stupid tards who vote Dumbocrat expecting something different but gets screwed every time.  Jimmy(the peanut) Carter is smiling as he no longer is the worst president in the history of the US.


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> Workers are much happier when Wages rise vs Prices. Clinton & Obama did the best. Bush #2 was The Worst President!


Clinton had nothing to do with the dot com bubble or it's bust, ya dim wit.


----------



## RKMBrown

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
Click to expand...

Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.


----------



## danielpalos

Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.


Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heck are you smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich pay the vast vast majority of all taxes.
> 
> By any estimation, the rich pay far than any other group relative to their own income.
> 
> And by the way, you do know that the charitable giving by the top 1% is greater than the charitable giving by all the other income groups combined, right?
Click to expand...


ALL taxes? Oh right INCOME taxes that are 46% of fed revenues and 2009, an anomaly year? lol

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something,* and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class (even though their incomes are over$1,000,000+ per family) *.

 




*That's really what the American tax system looks like*: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


The one tax graph you really need to know


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'VE already been proved a liar about that in this thread dumbass! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
Click to expand...




Sure Bubs, sure:

*DUMBASS SAYS:*

"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!

THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
Click to expand...


*The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*


*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.


*In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

*Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*

The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

why claim you believe in Capitalism.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.




Flat tax now and forever. Is patently unfair to tax more just because you're wealthier. Everything else in our legal system loves to boast how we're everyone treated equally and fairly, then the tax code comes up and it's anything but equal and fair.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe in theft?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dad2three said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
Click to expand...


*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.

It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.


----------



## thanatos144

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
Click to expand...

Like GE and all of obama's backers?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

thanatos144 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like GE and all of obama's backers?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, Obama's green energy corporate welfare for GE is the law.


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
Click to expand...

Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

The founders were not socialists like you 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders were not socialists like you
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They knew that socialism requires a social contract and social morals for free in a Constitution.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders were not socialists like you
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They knew that socialism requires a social contract and social morals for free in a Constitution.
Click to expand...

Go learn some history you moron 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders were not socialists like you
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They knew that socialism requires a social contract and social morals for free in a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go learn some history you moron
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i have; why do you think i don't resort to fallacies; like you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
Click to expand...

You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.


----------



## Dad2three

Delta4Embassy said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax now and forever. Is patently unfair to tax more just because you're wealthier. Everything else in our legal system loves to boast how we're everyone treated equally and fairly, then the tax code comes up and it's anything but equal and fair.
Click to expand...



Weird, the US has had progressive taxation since the founding. You prefer going to a regressive tax system?  

Think the middle class and poor would have a harder or easier time paying the "FAIR" tax (30%) than millionaires paying the 30%?


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yes, BECAUSE those "job creators" made their money in a closed loop, without the help of society or Gov't subsidy/help!


----------



## RKMBrown

Dad2three said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax now and forever. Is patently unfair to tax more just because you're wealthier. Everything else in our legal system loves to boast how we're everyone treated equally and fairly, then the tax code comes up and it's anything but equal and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the US has had progressive taxation since the founding. You prefer going to a regressive tax system?
> 
> Think the middle class and poor would have a harder or easier time paying the "FAIR" tax (30%) than millionaires paying the 30%?
Click to expand...

No dumb ass.  They did not have progressive income tax since the founding.  Have you ever been right about anything?


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like GE and all of obama's backers?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama wrote the tax laws *shaking head*

Obama did this too right:


* Hypocrites: Fox Attacks GE Over Tax Dodge, But News Corp. Did The Same*


*Hypocrites: Fox Attacks GE Over Tax Dodge, But News Corp. Did The Same**


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, capitalists should be taxed according to their capital, under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you are jealous doesn't mean they have to pay
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


SOURCE of your BS premise, even the "FAIR" Tax at 30% would bring in less revenues!


----------



## easyt65

The top 20% of wage earners / those who pay taxes paid 84% of all the taxes in this country.
The top 10% of wage earners / those who pay income taxes paid a reported 68% of all taxes in this country.
Currently 53% of Americans pay any income taxes.
Approx *46.4 percent* of U.S. households did / do NOT pay federal income taxes at all

WHY should Americans who make more have to pay more? What ever happened to 'everyone needs to pay their FAIR SHARE?'  Jealousy and laziness is not a good reason to force people who do work hard to pay more money (their share AND yours)!

The current tax system is absolute B$. Billion-dollar companies pay little to no taxes
Obama administration personnel, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Ex-head of the treasury Timmy Geithner...all paid no taxes (tax evasion)

A 'Flat' or 'Fair' tax is needed. Everyone needs to pay their fair share - EVERYONE.

Also, if you pay NO taxes in this country, you should have NO SAY in how the country is run, ie no right to vote. A famous quote (Jefferson/Franklin?) states that a country is lost when there are more people NOT paying taxes than there are that do, when a nation realizes it can simply vote itself more 'free money'. Those who are working and paying taxes become the 'slaves' of those not working / paying taxes, who receive the tax-payer funded benefits for which they have not worked / earned.  Sorry - you don't 'have any skin in the game', you are not paying taxes, then you should have no say in how the 'adults' who are being productive and who are working and paying taxes to support your existence run the country. (IMO)


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why claim you believe in Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in theft?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you soo Socialist, you want Government for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does government have to steal from my income my property to survive?  A very small consumption tax would work.... of course we would have to cut giant swaths of welfare from the federal spending
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some on the left know we merely need sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare as wisely enumerated by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders were not socialists like you
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Weird, The Founders got rid of that "small States right" thing the Articles of Confederation FOR the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T Constitution!

*Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798*

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798





*Our Socialist Founding Fathers*

*In that cherished document, the Founding Fathers demanded socialism. Section 8 of Article I, for example, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." That same Section also authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies," and even "To provide and maintain a Navy." Although the text does not preclude privatization of these public institutions indeed, they continue to include entrepreneurial elements to this day  the Framers understood that they would certainly have public, social elements as well


. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams â€” among others â€” all signed this document. They agreed that the new national government would facilitate communication and defense through taxation. They agreed that these essential services would not have to be purchased on the open market. They agreed that these services would not be limited to those who could pay fair market value.
*
The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (who skipped the Constitutional Convention in favor of traipsing off to Paris during that hot summer in 1787), also supported the fledgling Nation's foray into socialism. Perhaps the greatest of all of America's socialized institutions, the Nation's modern highway system, was begun in 1806 by then-President Jefferson's authorization of the Cumberland (National) Road. Transportation, too, was deemed to be one of the Nation's essential services that could not be relegated to private industry. 

The Congress did President Jefferson one better. It socialized the great bulk of America's navigable waterways in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The founding generation recognized early on that the national government needed the power regulate interstate commerce ”this was written into Article I of the 1787 Constitution”and waterways provided the most important channel of commerce. *The national government, using this authority, opened America's internal waterways to commerce. These immense "social" highways proved a boon to entrepreneurial activities (and perhaps saved the Nation).

Communication, transportation and mutual defense provide only the most obvious examples of the Founding Father's interests in socialized institutions. *

Of course, the Founding generation did not believe that every human endeavor benefited from governmental competition. The founding generation's socialism only went so far. The Founders believed in private enterprise. 
*
But it was not long before the Founders' sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, discovered the benefits of extending socialism beyond communication, transportation and national defense. *Libraries, fire protection, police protection and education were all socialized to some extent in the nineteenth century. None of these developments replaced private enterprise they merely insured that more Americans reaped the benefits.

JURIST -     Our Socialist Founding Fathers


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax now and forever. Is patently unfair to tax more just because you're wealthier. Everything else in our legal system loves to boast how we're everyone treated equally and fairly, then the tax code comes up and it's anything but equal and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the US has had progressive taxation since the founding. You prefer going to a regressive tax system?
> 
> Think the middle class and poor would have a harder or easier time paying the "FAIR" tax (30%) than millionaires paying the 30%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb ass.  They did not have progressive income tax since the founding.  Have you ever been right about anything?
Click to expand...


Weird, HOW DID THE FEDERAL GOV'T GET FUNDED BUBBA? Please tell me?

Hint TARIFFS, who buys stuff from overseas at the time? Hint THE RICH

*Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth" *

Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth" (UPDATED)


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> The top 20% of wage earners / those who pay taxes paid 84% of all the taxes in this country.
> The top 10% of wage earners / those who pay income taxes paid a reported 68% of all taxes in this country.
> Currently 53% of Americans pay any income taxes.
> Approx *46.4 percent* of U.S. households did / do NOT pay federal income taxes at all
> 
> WHY should Americans who make more have to pay more? What ever happened to 'everyone needs to pay their FAIR SHARE?'  Jealousy and laziness is not a good reason to force people who do work hard to pay more money (their share AND yours)!
> 
> The current tax system is absolute B$. Billion-dollar companies pay little to no taxes
> Obama administration personnel, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Ex-head of the treasury Timmy Geithner...all paid no taxes (tax evasion)
> 
> A 'Flat' or 'Fair' tax is needed. Everyone needs to pay their fair share - EVERYONE.
> 
> Also, if you pay NO taxes in this country, you should have NO SAY in how the country is run, ie no right to vote. A famous quote (Jefferson/Franklin?) states that a country is lost when there are more people NOT paying taxes than there are that do, when a nation realizes it can simply vote itself more 'free money'. Those who are working and paying taxes become the 'slaves' of those not working / paying taxes, who receive the tax-payer funded benefits for which they have not worked / earned.  Sorry - you don't 'have any skin in the game', you are not paying taxes, then you should have no say in how the 'adults' who are being productive and who are working and paying taxes to support your existence run the country. (IMO)




Oh conflating INCOME taxes which is 25% of ALL Gov't revenues is being conflated with "all taxes"? lol

It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

 






*
That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something,* and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011

The one tax graph you really need to know

JUST IGNORE IT AGAIN BUUBA, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE! 
.


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat tax now and forever. Is patently unfair to tax more just because you're wealthier. Everything else in our legal system loves to boast how we're everyone treated equally and fairly, then the tax code comes up and it's anything but equal and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the US has had progressive taxation since the founding. You prefer going to a regressive tax system?
> 
> Think the middle class and poor would have a harder or easier time paying the "FAIR" tax (30%) than millionaires paying the 30%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb ass.  They did not have progressive income tax since the founding.  Have you ever been right about anything?
Click to expand...


WHO SAID INCOME TAX DUMBASS? I know it was the PROGRESSIVE Abe who wanted and gave US the first one, to pay for a war the CONservative CONfederates States of AmeriKKKa started! Oh wait, a GOPer (PROGRESSIVE HOWEVER), WANTED TO FUND A WAR???


----------



## easyt65

Dad2three said:


> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.



It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)


----------



## easyt65

Dad2three said:


> [
> WHO SAID INCOME TAX DUMBASS? I know it was the PROGRESSIVE Abe who wanted and gave US the first one, to pay for a war the CONservative CONfederates States of AmeriKKKa started! Oh wait, a GOPer (PROGRESSIVE HOWEVER), WANTED TO FUND A WAR???




1. Funny you should use 'kkk' when the racist organization was started by and fully 'owned' by Democrats.

2. UNLIKE Obama's own personal war he dragged the US into - helping Al Qaeida, perpetrators of both 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 attacks that caused American deaths, to take over Libya - Liberals GAVE Bush the authorization to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq by voting for it.  Not only did they vote for it but they advocated it in Congress.

Sorry, I forgot, Liberals can never be held responsible for their own actions! lol


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
Click to expand...


Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol

You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol

Mormons tend to do that right?


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> WHO SAID INCOME TAX DUMBASS? I know it was the PROGRESSIVE Abe who wanted and gave US the first one, to pay for a war the CONservative CONfederates States of AmeriKKKa started! Oh wait, a GOPer (PROGRESSIVE HOWEVER), WANTED TO FUND A WAR???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Funny you should use 'kkk' when the racist organization was started by and fully 'owned' by Democrats.
> 
> 2. UNLIKE Obama's own personal war he dragged the US into - helping Al Qaeida, perpetrators of both 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 attacks that caused American deaths, to take over Libya - Liberals GAVE Bush the authorization to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq by voting for it.  Not only did they vote for it but they advocated it in Congress.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot, Liberals can never be held responsible for their own actions! lol
Click to expand...



Weird, you NOW want to conflate Dems in the 1860's with current Dems even though the parties changed twice since the early 1900's?

Yep, the Dems were THE CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa then, PROGRESSIVE Abe had to kick their ass after they attacked US over their "belief" in slavery! The same SOUTHERN CONservative States of AmeriKKKa fought LBJ's Civil Rights acts in the 1960's, those SOUTHERN CONServative States of AmeriKKKa ARE the current GOP base too Bubba



Liberals voted for Dubya's war of choice??? LINKIE PLEASE?

60% OF DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST DUBYA'S WAR OF CHOICE DUMBASS!


----------



## RKMBrown

easyt65 said:


> The top 20% of wage earners / those who pay taxes paid 84% of all the taxes in this country.
> The top 10% of wage earners / those who pay income taxes paid a reported 68% of all taxes in this country.
> Currently 53% of Americans pay any income taxes.
> Approx *46.4 percent* of U.S. households did / do NOT pay federal income taxes at all
> 
> WHY should Americans who make more have to pay more? What ever happened to 'everyone needs to pay their FAIR SHARE?'  Jealousy and laziness is not a good reason to force people who do work hard to pay more money (their share AND yours)!
> 
> The current tax system is absolute B$. Billion-dollar companies pay little to no taxes
> Obama administration personnel, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Ex-head of the treasury Timmy Geithner...all paid no taxes (tax evasion)
> 
> A 'Flat' or 'Fair' tax is needed. Everyone needs to pay their fair share - EVERYONE.
> 
> Also, if you pay NO taxes in this country, you should have NO SAY in how the country is run, ie no right to vote. A famous quote (Jefferson/Franklin?) states that a country is lost when there are more people NOT paying taxes than there are that do, when a nation realizes it can simply vote itself more 'free money'. Those who are working and paying taxes become the 'slaves' of those not working / paying taxes, who receive the tax-payer funded benefits for which they have not worked / earned.  Sorry - you don't 'have any skin in the game', you are not paying taxes, then you should have no say in how the 'adults' who are being productive and who are working and paying taxes to support your existence run the country. (IMO)


Corporations are not living beings.  The people that own and work for companies are living beings. Everyone with income pays federal income taxes.  Asking someone that has invested in a corporation to pay corporate taxes on his investment then income taxes on what's left from the profit.. well that's double taxation.  Why should I have to pay taxes twice.  I'm the same person whether I own a company or not.  Why should I have to pay corporation tax on my labor then income tax on the post corporate tax profit?  Why do you want to tax my labor twice?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass.. the rich do pay more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


By all means, expand on your claim.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the percentage of the total is MUCH less.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, expand on your claim.
Click to expand...

missquoted ya? I meant that for the guy that said "*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*."

Who would be David Cay Johnston.  Any particular reason you decided to plagiarize him?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, expand on your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> missquoted ya? I meant that for the guy that said "*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*."
Click to expand...


Yeah, he's full of shit.


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top 20% of wage earners / those who pay taxes paid 84% of all the taxes in this country.
> The top 10% of wage earners / those who pay income taxes paid a reported 68% of all taxes in this country.
> Currently 53% of Americans pay any income taxes.
> Approx *46.4 percent* of U.S. households did / do NOT pay federal income taxes at all
> 
> WHY should Americans who make more have to pay more? What ever happened to 'everyone needs to pay their FAIR SHARE?'  Jealousy and laziness is not a good reason to force people who do work hard to pay more money (their share AND yours)!
> 
> The current tax system is absolute B$. Billion-dollar companies pay little to no taxes
> Obama administration personnel, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Ex-head of the treasury Timmy Geithner...all paid no taxes (tax evasion)
> 
> A 'Flat' or 'Fair' tax is needed. Everyone needs to pay their fair share - EVERYONE.
> 
> Also, if you pay NO taxes in this country, you should have NO SAY in how the country is run, ie no right to vote. A famous quote (Jefferson/Franklin?) states that a country is lost when there are more people NOT paying taxes than there are that do, when a nation realizes it can simply vote itself more 'free money'. Those who are working and paying taxes become the 'slaves' of those not working / paying taxes, who receive the tax-payer funded benefits for which they have not worked / earned.  Sorry - you don't 'have any skin in the game', you are not paying taxes, then you should have no say in how the 'adults' who are being productive and who are working and paying taxes to support your existence run the country. (IMO)
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not living beings.  The people that own and work for companies are living beings. Everyone with income pays federal income taxes.  Asking someone that has invested in a corporation to pay corporate taxes on his investment then income taxes on what's left from the profit.. well that's double taxation.  Why should I have to pay taxes twice.  I'm the same person whether I own a company or not.  Why should I have to pay corporation tax on my labor then income tax on the post corporate tax profit?  Why do you want to tax my labor twice?
Click to expand...


So you want a Corp shield BUT don't want to pay for it??? lol


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Not only do the rich pay more, the percentage of the total is also higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, expand on your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> missquoted ya? I meant that for the guy that said "*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*."
> 
> Who would be David Cay Johnston.  Any particular reason you decided to plagiarize him?
Click to expand...


Plagiarize? Bubba, don't notice that red link you dumbfukk?


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
Click to expand...

That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank said " THERE'S NOTHING WRONG AT FANNIE MAE"
> which is of course a whole different thing than Snow saying he didnt see an "imminent danger to the financial system". one is saying "NOTHING IS WRONG", THE OTHER IS SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.
> 
> you lose again Dad2; you just keep proving left-wingers are never man enough to admit their are wron; or their leaders were wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, Barney saying during the F/F ACCOUNTING scandal of *2003-2004 there was nothing wrong with F/F** like there was nothing wrong with AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns  (HINT THREE OF THOSE WERE GONE BY 2010M, 2 OTHERS CHANGED CHARTERS!!!) , WAMU, AND DOZENS OF OTHER BANKS *
> 
> 
> OH RIGHT, DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE HADN'T YET STARTED AND DUBYA'S POLICIES THAT HOSE F/F HADN'T GONE FULL APESHIT CRAZY YET
> 
> Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, *beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
Click to expand...

So he was incapable of seeing a looming problem that others WERE capable of seeing?


----------



## RKMBrown

I have dad2three on ignore. I did not see his posts. Thus.. I thought Todd made the post. Did not attrib it to a sub-quote from the moron dad2three till just now as I turned on show ignore posts. We are in violent agreement Toddsterpatriot . Cheers.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dad2three said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston*
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.
> 
> 
> *In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.* That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.
> 
> Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.
> 
> *Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.*
> 
> The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*.
> 
> It's horrible when rich people obey the tax laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a dumb ass lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, expand on your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> missquoted ya? I meant that for the guy that said "*Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each*."
> 
> Who would be David Cay Johnston.  Any particular reason you decided to plagiarize him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plagiarize? Bubba, don't notice that red link you dumbfukk?
Click to expand...

You were on ignore.. so no I did not.  Oh yeah back on ignore.. bye.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
Click to expand...

That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?


----------



## LogikAndReazon

"War of choice"....  Lol

Always have to chuckle at that teeny bopper drivel


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank said " THERE'S NOTHING WRONG AT FANNIE MAE"
> which is of course a whole different thing than Snow saying he didnt see an "imminent danger to the financial system". one is saying "NOTHING IS WRONG", THE OTHER IS SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.
> 
> you lose again Dad2; you just keep proving left-wingers are never man enough to admit their are wron; or their leaders were wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, Barney saying during the F/F ACCOUNTING scandal of *2003-2004 there was nothing wrong with F/F** like there was nothing wrong with AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns  (HINT THREE OF THOSE WERE GONE BY 2010M, 2 OTHERS CHANGED CHARTERS!!!) , WAMU, AND DOZENS OF OTHER BANKS *
> 
> 
> OH RIGHT, DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE HADN'T YET STARTED AND DUBYA'S POLICIES THAT HOSE F/F HADN'T GONE FULL APESHIT CRAZY YET
> 
> Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, *beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he was incapable of seeing a looming problem that others WERE capable of seeing?
Click to expand...




Looming? HOW Bubs, Dubya DIDN'T start his policies that hosed F/F until later on that summer?

Ignore how well F/F loans performed compared to the private markets, as well as ignore policies Dubya's pushed that harmed F/F Shocking'


*June 17, 2004*

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a * Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people,* a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004







*HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.*






*Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says*

*Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, *said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.



*So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush*


*http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf*


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
Click to expand...



Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do. 

LOL


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
Click to expand...


Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists

Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.


One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
.
The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.


Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
, TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
corporate equity (shareholders )
.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf


OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> "War of choice"....  Lol
> 
> Always have to chuckle at that teeny bopper drivel



It wasn't? Why Dubya/.Cheney twist and turn soooo much to get the Congress to go along with them then?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.
Click to expand...



Good you agree, Mittens charity didn't help the poor much, but it helped to "spread the word" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
Click to expand...

So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to see Liberals finally admitting they lied when they said Romney had not paid any taxes in years. (Reid finally and shamelessly admitted that he had lied about Romney when he abused his power by attacking Romney, as American citizen, form the floor of the US Senate, justifying his lies told to help Obama win by saying, "It worked, didn't it?'  BTW, Obama, Reid, and Biden also attacked Romney over 'paultry' charitable contributions...and when the truth came out it was found that Romney's contributions to charity more than doubled that of Obama and Biden COMBINED.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good you agree, Mittens charity didn't help the poor much, but it helped to "spread the word" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!
Click to expand...

Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and do a little research into Morman charitable activities before you make yourself look foolish all over again.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
Click to expand...


Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
Click to expand...

Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link to that "apology" Bubba, just ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU. Shocking, lol
> 
> You mean Romney gave money to the church he belonged too? lol
> 
> Mormons tend to do that right?
> 
> 
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good you agree, Mittens charity didn't help the poor much, but it helped to "spread the word" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and do a little research into Morman charitable activities before you make yourself look foolish all over again.
Click to expand...


Your projection noted Bubs

The _Mormon_ Church is _spending_ less than 1% of its income to help the _poor_.


*Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates*

Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations. 
*
It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.*

*
The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools*. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands. 

It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church. 


The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States

Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates - Investigations


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> 
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
Click to expand...



Oh right, silly me, the Corps can't take less profit


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's charity, Cletus, because the church then uses the funds for charitable works.  You do know how that works, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good you agree, Mittens charity didn't help the poor much, but it helped to "spread the word" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and do a little research into Morman charitable activities before you make yourself look foolish all over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your projection noted Bubs
> 
> The _Mormon_ Church is _spending_ less than 1% of its income to help the _poor_.
> 
> 
> *Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates*
> 
> Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.
> *
> It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.*
> 
> *
> The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools*. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.
> 
> It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.
> 
> 
> The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States
> 
> Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates - Investigations
Click to expand...

Hey, what do you know?  They're highly successful.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, silly me, the Corps can't take less profit
Click to expand...

Now you're starting to look foolish again, because you're still arguing the same thing and ignoring the magic money pot that apparently they use to pay taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> 
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
Click to expand...


He is rather clueless.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> 
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, silly me, the Corps can't take less profit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're starting to look foolish again, because you're still arguing the same thing and ignoring the magic money pot that apparently they use to pay taxes.
Click to expand...


Yep, because IF they pay less taxes, they'll charge less right? Ignore the graph huh? lol


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubba, they don't fund the church building or salaries , it's used for the "charity' they do.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Every charity has overhead, Cletus.  Just ask the Clintons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good you agree, Mittens charity didn't help the poor much, but it helped to "spread the word" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and do a little research into Morman charitable activities before you make yourself look foolish all over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your projection noted Bubs
> 
> The _Mormon_ Church is _spending_ less than 1% of its income to help the _poor_.
> 
> 
> *Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates*
> 
> Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.
> *
> It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.*
> 
> *
> The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools*. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.
> 
> It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.
> 
> 
> The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States
> 
> Mormon church earns $7 billion a year from tithing, analysis indicates - Investigations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, what do you know?  They're highly successful.
Click to expand...


Got it, NO they don't help the poor much, but sure did create a juggernaut of a Biz right Bubs?


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what you tried and failed to argue in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
Click to expand...


Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently. 

When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America. 

Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
Click to expand...


*I understand the difference of asset growth versus income dummy, YOU argued A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING, REPEATEDLY! *

*YOU argued the US couldn't tax foreign investment/income (REMEMBER BUBS???) 

You argued IF you brought home monies you paid taxes on in Germany, US would tax at 39%. NOPE*



YOUR PLAN (remember THAT'S how this started) was that IF we brought monies back from offshore, tax free for ten years, you wouldn't need to pay taxes on it BECAUSE it would stop the "DOUBLE TAXATION" YOU ARGUED WAS HAPPENING? lol

Nope, AS I POINTED OUT, The US has 40+ treaties that DON'T allow double taxation on incomes that were taxed offshore already (UNLESS it's in a tax haven like Caymen or Belize you seem to like!)

KEEP SPINNING BUBBA, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> 
> Dumbass says:
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
Click to expand...


*"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*

Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US! 


Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).

Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, silly me, the Corps can't take less profit
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says taxes are born by customers? Hint NOT economists
> 
> Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.
> 
> 
> One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from “supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
> .
> The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relatively immobile internationally.
> 
> 
> Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its
> corporate income tax incidence. For standard distributional analyses
> , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden
> as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all
> capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to
> corporate equity (shareholders )
> .
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf
> 
> 
> OVER HALF CAP GAINS/DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US!
> 
> 
> 
> So the money corporations have extracted from them to pay the taxes come from where, again?  Where is this source of money that is NOT generated by customers purchasing their goods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generated? Oh you mean the Corps MUST make a certain amount of money, and if taxes increase their costs must also? They can't take less return on investment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now I see why you look so foolish.  You're arguing about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations, which is NOT where the money comes from to pay the taxes.  You see, the inane idea of replacing individual taxes with corporate taxes simply hides the tax, which the consumer pays anyway.  See, I knew you couldn't be that dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, silly me, the Corps can't take less profit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 49942
Click to expand...


Got it, you will NEVER accept that what you were arguing, like MOST right wingers, was BS based upon BS.

Double taxation? lol


----------



## Boss

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... Proving that you are arguing we tax wealth assets. Bzzz,, WRONG BUBS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*
> 
> Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US!
> 
> 
> Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).
> 
> Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!
Click to expand...


Yep.... walk it all back... that's right, pinhead. Nothing is "income" until it's cashed out. I never said dividends were paid, in fact, I specifically addressed the difference between a "dividend value" and an a "dividend received" which you had erroneously confused numerous times. I get a statement each year, telling me my dividend value, should I decide to receive my dividend as income. I decline. It remains a wealth asset or holding and it will remain that until I cash it out. 

So don't you feel really silly now? All this time you've spent constructing these beautifully formatted posts... colored letters in bold... research time spent at the IRS website to find all the ammo you needed to take Boss down.... all for nothing because you didn't *listen*.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you simplified the tax system then there would be less IRS agents needed, less Tax Accountants, and more people on unemployment.  One reason why the left doesn't want Tax simplification, is then they don't have a Lois Lerner, going after conservative pac, or other ways to stifle opposition voices.  So we will continue to see an unjust tax system that punishes those that have worked hard, and reward those that sit back, in their parents basement, typing on plastic made from OIL, and bitching about the country, that they wish wasn't here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we could really simplify the tax code for most people by eliminating the personal income tax altogether. Just tax corporations and businesses.  Have a standard deduction for any full time employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would just hide the tax that the customers end up paying anyway through higher prices.
Click to expand...


well it would certainly simplify taxes


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*
> 
> Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US!
> 
> 
> Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).
> 
> Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... walk it all back... that's right, pinhead. Nothing is "income" until it's cashed out. I never said dividends were paid, in fact, I specifically addressed the difference between a "dividend value" and an a "dividend received" which you had erroneously confused numerous times. I get a statement each year, telling me my dividend value, should I decide to receive my dividend as income. I decline. It remains a wealth asset or holding and it will remain that until I cash it out.
> 
> So don't you feel really silly now? All this time you've spent constructing these beautifully formatted posts... colored letters in bold... research time spent at the IRS website to find all the ammo you needed to take Boss down.... all for nothing because you didn't *listen*.
Click to expand...



WALK IT BACK?? OK DUMBFUKK, SINCE YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT WAY:

*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

*"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*

BZZ WRONG.


*
BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:


"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*


BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)



*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*


"Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."

BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!


BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!





*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*


"*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "

BZZ WRONG.



*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

"I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."

COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY


*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

"It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."




BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!

*BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*

"My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."


YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL



 *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*



*NEXT *



*LMAOROG*


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*
> 
> Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US!
> 
> 
> Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).
> 
> Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... walk it all back... that's right, pinhead. Nothing is "income" until it's cashed out. I never said dividends were paid, in fact, I specifically addressed the difference between a "dividend value" and an a "dividend received" which you had erroneously confused numerous times. I get a statement each year, telling me my dividend value, should I decide to receive my dividend as income. I decline. It remains a wealth asset or holding and it will remain that until I cash it out.
> 
> So don't you feel really silly now? All this time you've spent constructing these beautifully formatted posts... colored letters in bold... research time spent at the IRS website to find all the ammo you needed to take Boss down.... all for nothing because you didn't *listen*.
Click to expand...


Weird Bubba, I get attacked ALL day by the right wing, but not ONE single person has chimed in and defended your lying POS ass? Weird right Bubs?

i guess maybe because i actually copy and paste your actual words???? 

Just saying Bubba


LMAO


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep on spamming the board  with this... do we need to contact a mod?
> 
> I've already addressed your error several times.  We're not talking about income when we're talking about my wealth asset. It's not income. It won't ever be income unless I withdraw it and claim it as income. IF I DO THAT... THEN all this stuff you are posting applies. UNTIL I DO THAT, it's NOT INCOME!  CAN'T BE INCOME!  *WON'T BE TURNED MAGICALLY INTO INCOME BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!
> 
> NOW FUCK THE HELL OFF!  MORON!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*
> 
> Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US!
> 
> 
> Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).
> 
> Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... walk it all back... that's right, pinhead. Nothing is "income" until it's cashed out. I never said dividends were paid, in fact, I specifically addressed the difference between a "dividend value" and an a "dividend received" which you had erroneously confused numerous times. I get a statement each year, telling me my dividend value, should I decide to receive my dividend as income. I decline. It remains a wealth asset or holding and it will remain that until I cash it out.
> 
> So don't you feel really silly now? All this time you've spent constructing these beautifully formatted posts... colored letters in bold... research time spent at the IRS website to find all the ammo you needed to take Boss down.... all for nothing because you didn't *listen*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WALK IT BACK?? OK DUMBFUKK, SINCE YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT WAY:
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *
> BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> 
> "You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> *NEXT *
> 
> 
> 
> *LMAOROG*
Click to expand...


capital!


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Bubs, sure:
> 
> *DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE, BE IT IN THE US OR BELIZE, GERMANY OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION. NOW IF YOU MADE THE INCOME IN GERMANY, PROB ZERO TAXATION ISSUE IN THE US, BUT BELIZE OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN, PROB WOULD OWE SOME FORM OF TAXES!
> 
> THAT "WEALTH" YOU TALKING ABOUT LIAR? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... You can keep posting this spam as much as you like, it's in error because you keep talking about "income" and I don't have foreign income. I keep saying I don't have income and you keep saying "all income is taxed" and we're not making contact with your brain, apparently.
> 
> When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income. That income went into a securities investment which is now a *wealth asset*. It gains value each year and it rolls over into the investment, it is not claimed as income. If I ever take it out of the securities investment and bring it to the US, it counts as income... even though I already paid income tax on it in 1988. Some of it would only be subject to capital gains tax rates... but none of it is taxable in the US unless it is claimed as income. We do not tax wealth assets in America.
> 
> Look... This is the same thing as equity growth in your home. You own a home worth $200k in 2015... you do not owe income tax on your $200k home... it is an asset, not income. In 2016, the value of your home increased to $250k... you do not owe taxes on the $50k value your home gained any more than you owe tax on the home itself. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Because the value of your asset increased, doesn't make you liable for tax on the increase in value.  Now... IF I SELL MY HOME... different deal! THEN the money becomes earned income from the sale of property. It's a completely different ballgame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"When I earned the income back in 1988, I paid Germany income taxes. I did not owe US taxes on the income."*
> 
> Prob did not "owe" taxes BUT you were REQUIRED to report the income to the treasury, since Germany's tax rate would've been higher than the US, no taxes would've been owed in the US!
> 
> 
> Yes GROWTH from that asset IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM THE NATION EARNED WHEN CASHED OUT (or dividends are paid (which you said repeatedly happened) AND subject to US taxation IF US citizen BUT you get credit for foreign taxes paid!!).
> 
> Weird how YOU don't understand how double taxation YOU argued against earlier, doesn't really happen in the US on individuals income!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... walk it all back... that's right, pinhead. Nothing is "income" until it's cashed out. I never said dividends were paid, in fact, I specifically addressed the difference between a "dividend value" and an a "dividend received" which you had erroneously confused numerous times. I get a statement each year, telling me my dividend value, should I decide to receive my dividend as income. I decline. It remains a wealth asset or holding and it will remain that until I cash it out.
> 
> So don't you feel really silly now? All this time you've spent constructing these beautifully formatted posts... colored letters in bold... research time spent at the IRS website to find all the ammo you needed to take Boss down.... all for nothing because you didn't *listen*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WALK IT BACK?? OK DUMBFUKK, SINCE YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT WAY:
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> *"Not true. If you reside somewhere else and earn income somewhere else, the US has no authority to tax you."*
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> *
> BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:
> 
> 
> "You seem to think the US has some kind of taxing power that enables them to go all over the world taxing people in different countries because they happen to be US citizens. They don't."*
> 
> 
> BZZ WRONG. ALL US CITIZENS OWE TAXES ON ANY INCOME (OFFSET BY THOSE TAX TREATIES/TAXES PAID)
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> 
> "Your taxes are paid on the income you claim in the US. If I make $10 million in Germany and claim it as income in the US, then I pay taxes on it."
> 
> BZZ WRONG. There is no double taxation, that's what the treaties do. UNLESS it's from a TAX HAVEN then YOU PROBABLY will OWE US taxes if you bring it back!
> 
> 
> BUT IF YOU MAKE $10,000,000 IN GERMANY, AND PAY THEIR TAX RATES, YOUR US BURDEN WOULD BE ZERO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, YOU CAN BRING THE MONEY HOME ANYTIME, WITHOUT DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> 
> "*Your worldwide income (i.e.; your reported income earnings from abroad.) *If you do not claim them as income they are not earnings and not taxable. "
> 
> BZZ WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "I made $5 million IN Germany... got it? I paid income taxes on it, TO Germany? Following me? The money is still IN Germany, in a German bank, collecting German interest. Each year, I have to pay Germany tax on the interest dividends."
> 
> COOL. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT TO US TAX AUTHORITY
> 
> 
> "It is NOT US INCOME! It doesn't ever BECOME US income unless I bring it to the US and claim it as income. If I do that, I will be taxed AGAIN."
> 
> BZZ WRONG, AGAIN, ALL INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE WHETHER YOU ARE ON US SOIL OR TEA-BAGGERSTAN OR GERMANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED TO US TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SINCE (AGAIN) GERMANY HAS A HIGHER TAX BURDEN, THERE WOULD PROB BE NO NEW US TAX BURDEN IF YOU BRING THE MONEY TO THE US!
> 
> *BOSS THE DUMBASS SAYS:*
> 
> "My plan is to eliminate double taxation. Repatriate that wealth and create new jobs with it."
> 
> 
> YOUR "PLAN" DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING DONE??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs*
> 
> 
> 
> *NEXT *
> 
> 
> 
> *LMAOROG*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> capital!
Click to expand...



Freedom!


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> Freedom!



There ya' go! Change of heart?


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya' go! Change of heart?
Click to expand...


Just thought we were throwing out random words?


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya' go! Change of heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just thought we were throwing out random words?
Click to expand...


Freedom isn't random.


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya' go! Change of heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just thought we were throwing out random words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom isn't random.
Click to expand...


And it's not he BS right wingers scream about either!



Any more random word games or are you going to ATTEMPT to back up the LIAR Boss when he CLEARLY meant INCOME NOT asset appreciation (or as you put it "capital")

*I'll wait for SOMEONE to take issue with that LIAR Boss from the right, (since SUPPOSEDLY the "left" ALWAYS protects the left) IF any of you Klowns are EVER honest? Just saying, his OWN WORDS prove he lied and didn't understand his own premises, lol*


----------



## dblack

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya' go! Change of heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just thought we were throwing out random words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom isn't random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's not he BS right wingers scream about either!
> 
> 
> 
> Any more random word games or are you going to ATTEMPT to back up the LIAR Boss when he CLEARLY meant INCOME NOT asset appreciation (opr as you put it "capital")
> 
> *I'll wait for SOMEONE to take issue with that LIAR Boss from the right, (since SUPPOSEDLY the "left" ALWAYS protects the left) IF any of you Klowns are EVER honest? Just saying, his OWN WORDS prove he lied and didn't understand his own premises, lol*
Click to expand...


Sorry. TL;DR


----------



## Dad2three

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya' go! Change of heart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just thought we were throwing out random words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom isn't random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's not he BS right wingers scream about either!
> 
> 
> 
> Any more random word games or are you going to ATTEMPT to back up the LIAR Boss when he CLEARLY meant INCOME NOT asset appreciation (opr as you put it "capital")
> 
> *I'll wait for SOMEONE to take issue with that LIAR Boss from the right, (since SUPPOSEDLY the "left" ALWAYS protects the left) IF any of you Klowns are EVER honest? Just saying, his OWN WORDS prove he lied and didn't understand his own premises, lol*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. TL;DR
Click to expand...



Your failure noted Bubs


----------



## KissMy

Boss said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of fun showing that YOU are not only a stupid MF but a liar too Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good... I hope you enjoy your time away from the forums when they ban you for harassing posts.
> 
> You're going on IGNORE.
Click to expand...


 Lying Faggot Nigg can't handle the Truth!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.


----------



## danielpalos

Next time you just need to "burn through some money"; why not lookup a venture on EquityNet and fund a venture.  If you do some planning, you could potentially defer income for several years until the venture becomes profitable.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.





You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol

Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:




FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas


If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return

US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia



Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *


----------



## GWV5903

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...

Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim... 

The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...

The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
Click to expand...




> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *


 Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.


----------



## dcraelin

GWV5903 said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
Click to expand...


if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.


----------



## dcraelin

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
Click to expand...


can you blame the rich liberals if they take advantage of the laws republican suck-ups to the rich pass? I think not.........


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
Click to expand...

1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
Click to expand...


Basically, you suggesting that "those who do better, should be punished".  Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

A flat tax of 10%, would take the same percentage from every person in a fair way.

Fair.... is equality under the law.

Fair is not, you make wise choices with your life, so you lose 50% of your income.  Thanks for working as a slave of the state.

That's not fair dude.

And by the way, the whole lesson from Greece is that 'tax the rich' doesn't work.   They taxed the rich.... the rich left..... Greece is broke.

Expecting to follow the same pattern, and end up with a different result is crazy.


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you blame the rich liberals if they take advantage of the laws republican suck-ups to the rich pass? I think not.........
Click to expand...


What specific law are you saying no liberal passed?


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Eighty percent tax rates and really smart civil servants to spend it=utopia!

Lmfao


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
Click to expand...


well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office
> 
> Your ignorance , who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
Click to expand...


YOUR ignorance noted Bubs, that oil goes on trains INSTEAD OF KEYSTONE TODAY. MORE MIDDLE CLASS JOBS. Thanks Mr Buffet

Gates wants more India workers? Oh you mean the visa the GOP support?

Guess which BROTHERS have more than doubled their wealth since Obama? Oh right THE KOCH'S

Yes, Buffet/Gates are just Corp hoarders, WHO BOTH ARE GIVING AWAY THEIR WEALTH, HOW ABOUT THE KOCH'S/WALTONS? lol

DOES BUFFET/GATES SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON THOSE MAKING $1,000,000+ ? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, you suggesting that "those who do better, should be punished".  Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?
> 
> A flat tax of 10%, would take the same percentage from every person in a fair way.
> 
> Fair.... is equality under the law.
> 
> Fair is not, you make wise choices with your life, so you lose 50% of your income.  Thanks for working as a slave of the state.
> 
> That's not fair dude.
> 
> And by the way, the whole lesson from Greece is that 'tax the rich' doesn't work.   They taxed the rich.... the rich left..... Greece is broke.
> 
> Expecting to follow the same pattern, and end up with a different result is crazy.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing crap

10%? Ok which 2/3rds of Gov't spending you cutting? Even the "FAIR" Tax of 30% falls about 25% short, according to economists


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
Click to expand...


MORE BS

JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY

NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?








NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL


----------



## GWV5903

andaronjim said:


> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)



He pays a smaller percentage not less...


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you blame the rich liberals if they take advantage of the laws republican suck-ups to the rich pass? I think not.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What specific law are you saying no liberal passed?
Click to expand...


DUBYA'S TAX CUTS OF 2001 AND 2003 GOT WHAT, 6 TOTAL DEM VOTES? They cost the US treasury $3+ trillion the first ten years

WHERE WAS THE BENEFIT AGAIN??


----------



## GWV5903

dcraelin said:


> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.



This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime? 

If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
Click to expand...


You act as if you can just "make them pay it".   You can't.

Do you not realize how many hundreds of wealthy have a salary of $1?   Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.

What tax hike do you propose we pass, that will make the rich pay more tax?

Again, this whole ideology is exactly what Greece tried to do.   They tried to "make the rich pay the debt"... and look how that turned out.


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
Click to expand...


I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS

BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)

They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!


So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
 





WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL

The one tax graph you really need to know



Tax data here:
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You act as if you can just "make them pay it".   You can't.
> 
> Do you not realize how many hundreds of wealthy have a salary of $1?   Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.
> 
> What tax hike do you propose we pass, that will make the rich pay more tax?
> 
> Again, this whole ideology is exactly what Greece tried to do.   They tried to "make the rich pay the debt"... and look how that turned out.
Click to expand...



WEIRD, You think taxes are ONLY paid on salary? A few years ago when Buffet made that OPED, he said his INCOME was $40+ million TAXED at a lower percentage than his secretary, like MOST billionaires

WHY DON'T YOU AND THE GOP SUPPORT BUFFETT'S RULE FROM OBAMA, MIN 30% FED TAX "BURDEN" ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES?

GREECE HUH? Nothing ELSE happened just AFTER they got in a hole they upped rates? NOT like over 25% of their economy is black market and doesn't pay a tax burden right? CONservatives MUST love that right?

Banksters didn't become "creative" with Greece's debt to get them into the EU right (costing BILLIONS Banksters profited on)?


----------



## LogikAndReazon

For the Dimwitted...

Tax Cuts cost NOTHING.

The US treasury isnt owed a specific amount, didnt own it and certainly didnt earn it.   It belongs to the folks that it was taken from.  Thanks.


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> For the Dimwitted...
> 
> Tax Cuts cost NOTHING.
> 
> The US treasury isnt owed a specific amount, didnt own it and certainly didnt earn it.   It belongs to the folks that it was taken from.  Thanks.




UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, GUTTING TAXES LIKE THE GOP TEND TO DO, ALL YOU GET ARE DEFICITS BUBS

Weird Carter AND Clinton had US at 20% of GDP, AND Dubya took US down to  BELOW 15% of GDP AS HE RAMPED UP GOV''T SPENDING (2 UNFUNDED WARS, UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION, "Homeland sec", etc)


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
Click to expand...

That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Dont the Greeks understand that all they need to do is borrow, spend, and stimulate the economy with taxpayer infusions.......

Oh wait,  theyre learning the consequences of that obvious foolishness now.....

Unions Unite !!!!!!!!  Lmfao


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
Click to expand...




In August 2011, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the _New York Times_ in which he made the assertion that his* 2010 “federal tax rate” of 17.4 percent was 18.6 percentage points less than the 36.0 percent average rate paid by the 20 other workers in his office.*


Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule,(*MIN 30% ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES!*)  has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress.


Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

Let me guess? Buffet is "wrong" because he uses the payroll taxes the office pays? LIKE THE CBO, TREASURY, etc do too when figuring EFFECTIVE tax rates?


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Dont the Greeks understand that all they need to do is borrow, spend, and stimulate the economy with taxpayer infusions.......
> 
> Oh wait,  theyre learning the consequences of that obvious foolishness now.....
> 
> Unions Unite !!!!!!!!  Lmfao



One day, perhaps, you'll be able to join the grownup and use full sentences and ever paragraphs Bubba? Doubt it but who knows?


----------



## dcraelin

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
Click to expand...


not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.


----------



## Rozman

Democrat's should be required to pay higher taxes since they feel we're not taxed enough....
They want higher taxes....Then they should cut a check to the IRS when they file their tax returns...


----------



## Dad2three

Rozman said:


> Democrat's should be required to pay higher taxes since they feel we're not taxed enough....
> They want higher taxes....Then they should cut a check to the IRS when they file their tax returns...



Yeah, because that's how Gov't is funded, by voluntary contributions *shaking head*


GOP Prez policy since 1981 HAS created about 90% of current US debt but CONservatives/GOP think they shouldn't have to pay iy back!


For 34 years, CONservatives "supply side" BS has not only GUTTED revenues, rewarded the top 1/10th of 1% by HUGE increases in the piece of the pie they held 1945-1980 (while the tax "burden" on that piece of the pie has shrunk by 40%!!!), but they ALSO gutted infrastructure spending, safety nets and continue their war on the poor/middle class

Congrats you right wing loons, the US will look like a 3rd world nation your Klown policies create!


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat's should be required to pay higher taxes since they feel we're not taxed enough....
> They want higher taxes....Then they should cut a check to the IRS when they file their tax returns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because that's how Gov't is funded, by voluntary contributions *shaking head*
> 
> 
> GOP Prez policy since 1981 HAS created about 90% of current US debt but CONservatives/GOP think they shouldn't have to pay iy back!
> 
> 
> For 34 years, CONservatives "supply side" BS has not only GUTTED revenues, rewarded the top 1/10th of 1% by HUGE increases in the piece of the pie they held 1945-1980 (while the tax "burden" on that piece of the pie has shrunk by 40%!!!), but they ALSO gutted infrastructure spending, safety nets and continue their war on the poor/middle class
> 
> Congrats you right wing loons, the US will look like a 3rd world nation your Klown policies create!
Click to expand...

This just proves you are  a idiot. We haven't used conservative economics since Bush senior.  But Clinton should thank Reagan for the good economy that he fucked up. Good thing for newt or it would have been far worse 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
Click to expand...



What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.

Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.

If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.

But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.

However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.

They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.

His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.

Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.

Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat's should be required to pay higher taxes since they feel we're not taxed enough....
> They want higher taxes....Then they should cut a check to the IRS when they file their tax returns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because that's how Gov't is funded, by voluntary contributions *shaking head*
> 
> 
> GOP Prez policy since 1981 HAS created about 90% of current US debt but CONservatives/GOP think they shouldn't have to pay iy back!
> 
> 
> For 34 years, CONservatives "supply side" BS has not only GUTTED revenues, rewarded the top 1/10th of 1% by HUGE increases in the piece of the pie they held 1945-1980 (while the tax "burden" on that piece of the pie has shrunk by 40%!!!), but they ALSO gutted infrastructure spending, safety nets and continue their war on the poor/middle class
> 
> Congrats you right wing loons, the US will look like a 3rd world nation your Klown policies create!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This just proves you are  a idiot. We haven't used conservative economics since Bush senior.  But Clinton should thank Reagan for the good economy that he fucked up. Good thing for newt or it would have been far worse
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Yeah, I forgot, it was credit in right wing world for Ronnie's '18 year miracle" but Obama's economy, not Dubya's  *shaking head*

Newt huh? He vote for the 1993 tax increases that set the stage to get US 4 straight surpluses under BJ Bill the best conservative Prez since Ike? THREE OF THE SURPLUSES WERE AFTER BJ BILL VETOED THE GOP'S $700-+ BILLION TAX CUT. Then Dubya came in and we saw how "fiscally conservative" the GOP was, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
Click to expand...



MORE BULLSH*T

SS keeps half of seniors out of poverty, grow the fuk up!


So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
 






As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.


*But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.*

 





The one tax graph you really need to know


THOSE "LUCKY DUCKIES" AT THE BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA, AVERAGING ;LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY (A CUT OF ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY KEPT THE SAME PIECE OF THE PIE!)


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
Click to expand...


EITC is why most people have a minus tax burden, think they should stop working?


Reagan: EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,”


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


Do you even read the shit you post? 

From your link...

*Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
Click to expand...


I think he would know...

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

*Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.


----------



## GWV5903

dcraelin said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
Click to expand...


Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...

I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...

The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...

And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...

There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...


----------



## GWV5903

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
Click to expand...


Very true story, check it out...


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
Click to expand...


Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters

*
Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *

TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
Click to expand...




LOL

More "welfare queen" BS from the right


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true story, check it out...
Click to expand...



Yes since the bottom HALF OF AMERICANS made 11% of ALL US income a drop from 18% plus pre Reagan!

TRUE STORY!


----------



## sakinago

Dad2three said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah really, bc I work with a former VA nurse and have a family full of marines (all 4 uncles served, one died in nam, 3 of 6 of their sons currently serve) on my moms side, all that say a very different story other than satisfaction. And ASCI is like the restaurant polls that they give to their happy customers...and there is a big difference in satisfaction when your paying for it VS when it's free, but you don't hear that control being taken into consideration when they do these polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
Click to expand...

I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment? 

And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here. 

I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??


----------



## danielpalos

I believe we should discover a way and a means to abolish the "work tax" by ending direct taxes on "earned" income.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

This nation is 19 trillion in debt because we dont pay enough in taxes...   Got it...... Lol


----------



## danielpalos

Yes, simply because it cannot be immoral to merely and simply and secularly and temporally; Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.


----------



## danielpalos

Private charity can Only cover multitudes of sins; Only a public sector can Tax the wealthiest into Heaven and solve simple poverty at the same time; with the _full faith and credit of public Acts_.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
Click to expand...

Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.


----------



## Dad2three

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment?
> 
> And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here.
> 
> I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??
Click to expand...


Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers ever have Bubba?


RECORD Corp profits in the US, lowest tax "burden" in 40 years AND first time EVER labor rates below 50% of costs

Must be horrible to run a Biz in America


Flat taxes, ALL of them proposed, are regressive Bubba, that's demand side? lol








Weird the 3 times thew US economy has tanked in 100 year period we followed the GOPers "laizze affaire" (as close  as we can) policies


Harding/Coolidge "hands off approach, cheering on the credit bubble gave US the great depression

Ronnie Reagan ignored regulator warnings that started in 1984 that would've stopped 90% of his S&L crisis 

Then exactly 20 years later Dubya ignored FBI warnings of exactly the same thing, when he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble


ALL a coincidence right Bubba? lol


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> This nation is 19 trillion in debt because we dont pay enough in taxes...   Got it...... Lol




True, Ronnie/Dubya ALSO greatly ramped up spending AS they gutted taxes too!


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
Click to expand...



YET CBO and other economists look at the OVERALL tax burden, including Cap gains taxes, when they look at EFFECTIVE tax burden. Go figure!


----------



## dcraelin

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
Click to expand...


THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
Click to expand...


You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...

Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!

And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> More "welfare queen" BS from the right
Click to expand...


You have no clue...

You produce all this BS but you don't even read it?


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true story, check it out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes since the bottom HALF OF AMERICANS made 11% of ALL US income a drop from 18% plus pre Reagan!
> 
> TRUE STORY!
Click to expand...


Yes we created a welfare class due to the Liberal Left aren't you proud?


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
Click to expand...


So which one are you moron or liar? 

These are the facts and BTW it is the law...

Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you? 

You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
Click to expand...


Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol

Fukkn moron


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> More "welfare queen" BS from the right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue...
> 
> You produce all this BS but you don't even read it?
Click to expand...


Sorry dumbass been using the ANTI Tax Foundation link for YEARS, to not understand they push the right wing meme on that 25% of ALL Gov't taxes and that 46% of ALL FEDERAL taxes, INCOME taxes means something without the CONTEXT I GAVE, is MORE right wing noise devoid of logic and honesty

NEXT


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to point out, is that those at the lowest end, have a negative income tax rate.  Not only are they not contributing to the upkeep of this country in taxes, but they are actually getting money back.
> 
> Now this is one of those "Depending on your perspective" type arguments.
> 
> If you count Social Security as a tax, then no one avoids paying tax.
> 
> But then you would have to conclude that Social Security is one of the most horrific anti-poor taxes on the planet.
> 
> However, if you do not count Socialist Insecurity as a tax, then there are tons of people who get money BACK from the government.
> 
> They have a negative income tax rate.   They actually get more money from the government in refunds, than they have withheld in taxes.
> 
> His point is that we could balance the budget much easier, if we simply had everyone paying the minimum tax.
> 
> Or at the very least, if we were not paying people back, more money than they have withheld.
> 
> Having a tax rate of ZERO, would be a step above, a negative rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true story, check it out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes since the bottom HALF OF AMERICANS made 11% of ALL US income a drop from 18% plus pre Reagan!
> 
> TRUE STORY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we created a welfare class due to the Liberal Left aren't you proud?
Click to expand...


Yep, Ronnie/Reagan and the CONservatives are "left", lol


----------



## GWV5903

dcraelin said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe they don't know? 

They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem? 

The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
Click to expand...


Founders intentions? Oh right the OPPOSITE of what today's GOP/CONservatives want

AND? 

My liberal university ed where I received my minor in history must be wrong about the Founders choosing to get rid of that "small states rights" Articles of Confederation for the BIG FED GOV'T CONSTITUTION or the Founders choosing HEAVY protectionists policies over Adam Smith's "free markets" and the Founders wanting  to get rid of the power of Corps and inherited wealth when they created the MERIT based SOCIETY with their social contract!


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
Click to expand...


More excuses, thanks for confirming...

Get to work...


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe they don't know?
> 
> They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem?
> 
> The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...
Click to expand...


True, the GOP are mainly racists

But they give Tax ID numbers to GET MORE REVENUES from workers the "job creators" CHOOSE to higher, most, IMHO, knowingly BECAUSE they want to drive wages down!


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses, thanks for confirming...
> 
> Get to work...
Click to expand...


Can't refute it. Got it!


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
Click to expand...

First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> *My liberal university ed*



In other words "I want someone else to pay because...."

To be continued...

Unfortunately....


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
Click to expand...


So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level? 

Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My liberal university ed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words "I want someone else to pay because...."
> 
> To be continued...
> 
> Unfortunately....
Click to expand...

FYI if you don't reply to a specific post or subject no one knows what the hell you are talking about or who you are replying to.  

I don't appreciate being forced to fund income redistribution projects.  Nor do I support asset redistribution projects. I don't mind funding police, fire, rescue, etc.. but stealing my money so other people can live the life of Riley... fuck that.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
Click to expand...

No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe they don't know?
> 
> They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem?
> 
> The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, the GOP are mainly racists
> 
> But they give Tax ID numbers to GET MORE REVENUES from workers the "job creators" CHOOSE to higher, most, IMHO, knowingly BECAUSE they want to drive wages down!
Click to expand...


Yeah the Democrats had nothing to do with this...


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Its really civil servants who create growth and revenue !    Lmfao


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe they don't know?
> 
> They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem?
> 
> The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, the GOP are mainly racists
> 
> But they give Tax ID numbers to GET MORE REVENUES from workers the "job creators" CHOOSE to higher, most, IMHO, knowingly BECAUSE they want to drive wages down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah the Democrats had nothing to do with this...
Click to expand...

This what? 

This is not a subject.  When forming sentences try to use a subject and a verb.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
Click to expand...


Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...

Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Ah liberals.... Those open minded, critical thinkers.....

Lmfao


----------



## GWV5903

sakinago said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANYTHING on your MYTH of Switzerland being a libertarian paradise? How about on LBJ demand side tax cuts????
> 
> 
> NOTHING HUH? lol
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment?
> 
> And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here.
> 
> I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??
Click to expand...


He ignores a lot of things...


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
Click to expand...

WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> 
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
Click to expand...


so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.


----------



## dcraelin

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rhetorical question, you do realize we who do pay taxes cut refunds to individuals who don't pay a dime?
> 
> If you want to balance the budget realize this is one of the problems, tell me what the percentage and amount is of non tax paying citizens and I'll bet you lunch we can balance the budget...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe they don't know?
> 
> They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem?
> 
> The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...
Click to expand...


well we weren't talking about immigrants specifically...I suppose they arent meant to check out a persons status....thats a different branch of government. 

I said nothing about Republicans being racist either.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...
Click to expand...

You're a fool.  If your IQ is even half mine I'd be surprised.  There are many types of taxes federal, state, and regional.  Each tax may or may not be at the same rate.  One would have to be a COMPLETE FUCKING MORON to buy into the meme that people with capital gains income are getting a windfall because that type of income is taxed at a different rate than labor income.  A complete effing moron.


----------



## GWV5903

dcraelin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
Click to expand...


Yeah creating jobs is such a negative factor...

Let's increase our welfare rolls, that should do the trick...


----------



## dcraelin

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah creating jobs is such a negative factor...
> 
> Let's increase our welfare rolls, that should do the trick...
Click to expand...


of course I didnt say creating jobs is a "negative factor"  just that the corruption that goes on under the rubric of "creating jobs" is.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah creating jobs is such a negative factor...
> 
> Let's increase our welfare rolls, that should do the trick...
Click to expand...

Expecting government to create jobs is something only morons do.  So when politicians bait people like you... well here's your sign.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.  If your IQ is even half mine I'd be surprised.  There are many types of taxes federal, state, and regional.  Each tax may or may not be at the same rate.  One would have to be a COMPLETE FUCKING MORON to buy into the meme that people with capital gains income are getting a windfall because that type of income is taxed at a different rate than labor income.  A complete effing moron.
Click to expand...


You haven't a clue...


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah creating jobs is such a negative factor...
> 
> Let's increase our welfare rolls, that should do the trick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expecting government to create jobs is something only morons do.  So when politicians bait people like you... well here's your sign.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about the government creating jobs?


----------



## danielpalos

Infrastructure requires labor.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why would I want to be double taxed first on my income then on my investments from the taxed income?  Why would I want to fund government waste?  Are you drunk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.  If your IQ is even half mine I'd be surprised.  There are many types of taxes federal, state, and regional.  Each tax may or may not be at the same rate.  One would have to be a COMPLETE FUCKING MORON to buy into the meme that people with capital gains income are getting a windfall because that type of income is taxed at a different rate than labor income.  A complete effing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue...
Click to expand...

You're a moron.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah creating jobs is such a negative factor...
> 
> Let's increase our welfare rolls, that should do the trick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expecting government to create jobs is something only morons do.  So when politicians bait people like you... well here's your sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about the government creating jobs?
Click to expand...

Democrats and socialist republicans.


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'LL TAKE THAT BET BUBS
> 
> BOTTOM 50% OF US MAKE A WHOPPING 11% OF ALL US REVENUES (ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US)
> 
> They average LESS than $15,000 PER FAMILY IF THEY HAD THE SAME SHARE OF INCOME THEY HAD PRE REAGANOMICS (1980) THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ALMOST $5,000 PER FAMILY!
> 
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET? THE BOTTOM *HALF OF US* MAKING LES THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY? LOL
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> 
> Tax data here:
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
Click to expand...


Yeah, like all those green-energy money the left throws around.  Total corruption.  I'm against all of it.


----------



## Campbell

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:





................................Total U S Debt............................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
Click to expand...



My gardener asked the same thing, why do I need to 1099 when I've already paid taxes on the money?


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure where your going with this...the least wealthy often dont make enough to pay INCOME taxes...but taxing them more would be foolish since you cant squeeze blood from a turnip as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the truth is were I am going and if you really want to know I am certain you can find it...
> 
> I have seen too many times when couples get refunds in excess of $10K and make less than $60K a year, a fact that goes under the radar...
> 
> The last time this happened the husband was here on a sponsorship visa and lied about his mileage, their refund was in excess of $12K before their tax preparers fee came out of it...
> 
> And if you think they are in the minority you're fooling no one but yourself...
> 
> There are a lot of facts out there that no one talks about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THe IRS needs more enforcement personnel if that kind of thing isnt getting caught, but folks generally on the Republican side of the aisle usually vote to gut IRS funding...which makes cheating easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe they don't know?
> 
> They issue Tax ID numbers to million's of illegal immigrant's and then tell you we don't really have a immigration problem?
> 
> The Republicans are racist, that's the real problem...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, the GOP are mainly racists
> 
> But they give Tax ID numbers to GET MORE REVENUES from workers the "job creators" CHOOSE to higher, most, IMHO, knowingly BECAUSE they want to drive wages down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah the Democrats had nothing to do with this...
Click to expand...


Weird, you have ANYTHING on your posit? Nope like ALWAYS, lol


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Its really civil servants who create growth and revenue !    Lmfao



Free markets are in effect of most of  Asia and Africa, how's it working? Oops


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not against demand side tax cuts!!! That's what I've been saying all along. Supply tax cuts also help...however I believe that they should be equal, not negligible. You want to cry about companies moving overseas, but push policies that drive them overseas more.  And with the help of LBJs great society, how many more blacks are now dependent on the government?
> 
> And the biggest difference between private h/c and socialized h/c is that when there is wrong doing on the private side...those people go to prison and loose business ... When there's wrong doing with the VA, it's a slap on the wrist and more funding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment?
> 
> And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here.
> 
> I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignores a lot of things...
Click to expand...



Like posits by right wingers unsupported by FACTS or history, about 95% of what you present in other words!


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even read the shit you post?
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right sorry, I forgot in right wing world, 25% of ALL Gov't taxation and 46% of federal revenues. INCOME taxes is ALL that matters
> 
> *
> Top 50% of taxpayers TOOK almost 89% of ALL income dummy! *
> 
> TOP 10% MADE NEARLY 60% OF INCOME, HOW MUCH SHOULD THE BOTTOM 90% PAY?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly want to live in a Socialist Society, you're in the wrong country, you're too stupid to understand the benefits in front of you...
> 
> Get up off your LAZY F'ING ASS and EARN IT!!!
> 
> And don't come back here with your bullshit f'ing excuses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it in right wing world, Gov't policy doesn't matter, EXCEPT if "job creators" need a tax break to "create jobs" lol
> 
> Fukkn moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so right,.......so much corruption goes on under the "create jobs" excuse that it should trip red flags whenever the phrase is heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, like all those green-energy money the left throws around.  Total corruption.  I'm against all of it.
Click to expand...




LEFT???


*Program dates back to 2005*

The Energy Department's loan guarantee program was created as part of the* Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Bush.*

In his signing speech, Bush lauded the bill's support for clean technology, though he didn't specifically mention the loan guarantees.

The loan guarantees were designed to *"support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks."*

*Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels.* The president touted the new energy law in his 2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department issued its final rules for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.

Did the program that funded the Solyndra loan start under George W. Bush? David Plouffe says so



*Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money (AND PROFITABLE,, THOUGH THE GOP CONGRESS SET ASIDE $10 BILLION FOR LOSSES!) *


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:

Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."

Obama’s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra’s Fate With Low Costs

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee


----------



## Campbell

Dad2three said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really civil servants who create growth and revenue !    Lmfao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free markets are in effect of most of  Asia and Africa, how's it working? Oops
Click to expand...


Exactly the way the "have's" wanted it to. The poor assed "have not's" are expected to suck wind and keep their mouths closed. What they want is a Lord/Serf  Society and unless we bring back some organized labor and strong global unions they will get it. Unions are the only reason we ever had a middle class in this country and one of Reagan's initiatives was to destroy them. I think that's a bit ironic since he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild for a long time. 'Course he was a Democrat for a long time too. It's called "Follah' De Dollah!"


----------



## danielpalos

Why shouldn't the wealthiest be Taxed according to Capital under any form of Capitalism; _equality_ is a social concept and requires socialism.


----------



## Andylusion

You can always tell a partisan hack is posting when they arrogantly believe they know the internal motivations of "the have's", as if that's a group.

You don't know jack dude.   You barely even understand the information you just posted.


----------



## amrchaos

I think the Rich should not pay any taxes!!

Remember, the rich are the job creators--not the ambitious man starting up a company on a shoe string or the woman who wants to expand some little kitchen, they are bums!!  It is the RICH who make sound investments in established corporations.

If you tax the rich, you take away money that the rich has to make those investments.  1 million dollars could easily equal one million jobs.  But our nation need every job it can create.

So using my tax dollars to job creation formula for the rich, we should not tax them even 1 dollar.  not even part of that dollar since the rest of it would create an insignficant part time job.  That is right, let the rich keep their money.   Even if they save large amounts of cash in a safe, It creates more jobs than the broke bums begging for cash for their startups ever will!!


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what you're doing if you didn't know it...
> 
> Cap Gains taxes are lower for this reason, Buffett's income is from his Cap Gains that's why his percentage is lower than his secretary's...
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.  If your IQ is even half mine I'd be surprised.  There are many types of taxes federal, state, and regional.  Each tax may or may not be at the same rate.  One would have to be a COMPLETE FUCKING MORON to buy into the meme that people with capital gains income are getting a windfall because that type of income is taxed at a different rate than labor income.  A complete effing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...


You really have no clue...


----------



## GWV5903

Campbell said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Click to expand...


Let's just make them pay 90%...


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to invest your hard earned dollars that have already been taxed and have them taxed on a personal income tax level?
> 
> Not me, you keep funding the govt waste, I'm not interested...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *My gardener* asked the same thing, why do I need to 1099 when I've already paid taxes on the money?
Click to expand...


So you give your kid a 1099 for mowing the lawn?


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, false equivalencies, how wonderful *shaking head*
> 
> 
> 
> SUPPLY SIDE HELPS? WHEN DOES IT KICK IN BUBS?
> 
> Drive them overseas? Oh right the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps for 40 years? Horrible. Couldn't be CONservative "free trade" AS we gutted taxes on those job creators right?
> 
> Yep, the rights war on the war on poverty  has worked better than the lefts war on poverty Bubs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment?
> 
> And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here.
> 
> I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignores a lot of things...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like posits by right wingers unsupported by FACTS or history, about 95% of what you present in other words!
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

amrchaos said:


> I think the Rich should not pay any taxes!!
> 
> Remember, the rich are the job creators--not the ambitious man starting up a company on a shoe string or the woman who wants to expand some little kitchen, they are bums!!  It is the RICH who make sound investments in established corporations.
> 
> If you tax the rich, you take away money that the rich has to make those investments.  1 million dollars could easily equal one million jobs.  But our nation need every job it can create.
> 
> So using my tax dollars to job creation formula for the rich, we should not tax them even 1 dollar.  not even part of that dollar since the rest of it would create an insignficant part time job.  That is right, let the rich keep their money.   Even if they save large amounts of cash in a safe, It creates more jobs than the broke bums begging for cash for their startups ever will!!




YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS RIGHT? Today the "rich" job creators pay about 20% fed tax, where are the jobs?

Dubya cut the "job creators" tax burden to the lowest sustained since 1932, yet not ONE JOB was fukkn created. NOT ONE!

WE HAVE A DEMAND SIDE ECONOMY IN THE US, BUT SUPPLY SIDE TAX POLICY. STUPID!


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> False equivalencies? so it's solely because of free trade that allows companies to move overseas?
> 
> And again what is your solution? To force companies to stay in the states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so black and white with your "solely" free trade crap?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS* GOV'T POLICY THAT ALLOWS  OFFSHORING OF US JOBS* (as the money IS in the US) via *POLICIES *,that are mainly CONservative/GOP
> 
> Force Companies? You mean REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD HERE IF THE WANT O HAVE ACCESS TO THE #1 GDP IN THE WORLD? How horrible to have that type of policy, AGAIN!
> 
> HINT, CONservative policy ONLY works for the "job creators", be it safety laws, environment, labor, tax, or other PUBLIC POLICY! YES, GOV'T POLICY INFLUENCES WHERE THE JOBS ARE, ONLY A DISHONEST POS OR CON DISAGREES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm black and white? You completley ignore all the expensive factors that go into running a company in America to fit your argument, and then talk about the effective corporate tax rate and how it's not working. What about the cost of healthcare (huge, huge expense), land taxes, lawyers to make sure business follows every minutiae of regulation and reduction of liability, the cost to implement business according to regulation (not every regulation is bad...but a majority are ridiculous), all the licensing, and etc. So remind me why America is such a business friendly environment?
> 
> And your solution to get companies to stay here sounds very nationalistic, and socialist at the same time. I wonder if there is a party that combines the 2? And would it not greatly increase the cost of products and service on the demand side?? And what happens when all the QE money (2% a year I believe), that's basically just been going to overseas companies and investments, comes rushing back into the country? Would that not cause a lot of inflation??? But I guess the solution is to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the "rich", and essentially force companies to operate here.
> 
> I hear you talk about demand side tax cuts...but I doubt that you are actually for that, bc why not support the flat tax (not getting taxed on the first 50,000) at least on the personal side? After all the only area that you can admit there is govt waste of tax money is defense...but apparently no where else... Pretty much everything else the govt spends on is ok, and doesn't need any reform. That's funny, how much did govt spend on ACA website alone, and how much cheaper would the private sector make a similar website for themselves??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ignores a lot of things...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like posits by right wingers unsupported by FACTS or history, about 95% of what you present in other words!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> You can always tell a partisan hack is posting when they arrogantly believe they know the internal motivations of "the have's", as if that's a group.
> 
> You don't know jack dude.   You barely even understand the information you just posted.



Says the Klown arguiing "free markets", lol


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
Click to expand...


MARGINAL ? SURE BUBS


----------



## Campbell

amrchaos said:


> I think the Rich should not pay any taxes!!
> 
> Remember, the rich are the job creators--not the ambitious man starting up a company on a shoe string or the woman who wants to expand some little kitchen, they are bums!!  It is the RICH who make sound investments in established corporations.
> 
> If you tax the rich, you take away money that the rich has to make those investments.  1 million dollars could easily equal one million jobs.  But our nation need every job it can create.
> 
> So using my tax dollars to job creation formula for the rich, we should not tax them even 1 dollar.  not even part of that dollar since the rest of it would create an insignficant part time job.  That is right, let the rich keep their money.   Even if they save large amounts of cash in a safe, It creates more jobs than the broke bums begging for cash for their startups ever will!!



Horse Shit!!

Anybody who was around when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy knows what happened. He didn't cut spending a dime and Trickle Down never worked. Right now Obama's administration has had 66 consecutive months of increases in employment. The best example though is Bill Clinton's administration. He raised taxes in 1993 while he still had a Democratic congress, had a thriving economy and left a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to a paid off national debt. W. Bush cut tax rates for the wealthy twice, 2001 and 2003, increased spending, started two wars...one unnecessary and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. Bush was the sorriest president this country ever had and it's a mystery how the numb nuts managed to get re-elected:


----------



## thanatos144

At the end of his presidency and still they blame Bush.  What a pathetic bunch of idiots 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Campbell

thanatos144 said:


> At the end of his presidency and still they blame Bush.  What a pathetic bunch of idiots
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Yeah....it's OK for the Republicans to blame Jimmy Carter about everything from world war to the piles.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> Anybody who was around when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy knows what happened.



He sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history?  

The problem with your little 1% vs. 99% graphs and charts is, they do not reflect the vast number of people who moved from middle to upper income and in some cases, from lower to upper income in that same time frame. It's as if you assume "The 1%" is a static group of people that never changes. However, it is a fluctuating group which changes daily. 

It's important to note, Socialist propaganda relies on this misleading inference. It's the only way it can work. You begin with the premise we are all trapped in our class with no hope of ever escaping. Because... that's how it was in 19th century Europe and Asia, where Socialism cut it's teeth. 

In OUR society, you have the freedom and liberty to escape your class. You are not a prisoner to class. With ambition, drive and determination, along with persistence, you can be one of the 1%. Our system has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who was around when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy knows what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history?
> 
> The problem with your little 1% vs. 99% graphs and charts is, they do not reflect the vast number of people who moved from middle to upper income and in some cases, from lower to upper income in that same time frame. It's as if you assume "The 1%" is a static group of people that never changes. However, it is a fluctuating group which changes daily.
> 
> It's important to note, Socialist propaganda relies on this misleading inference. It's the only way it can work. You begin with the premise we are all trapped in our class with no hope of ever escaping. Because... that's how it was in 19th century Europe and Asia, where Socialism cut it's teeth.
> 
> In OUR society, you have the freedom and liberty to escape your class. You are not a prisoner to class. With ambition, drive and determination, along with persistence, you can be one of the 1%. Our system has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.
Click to expand...


You don't get it do you? Reagan borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks and quadrupled the national debt. That's enough to hand each man, woman and child in America ten thousand dollars. Guess what.....he gave it to those at the top. Another little bullshit story you're telling is about the economy. Reagan/Bush ended with a bad recession and Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and created one of the best economies in the nation's history. All that and left a balanced budget with a surplus. George Bush on the other hand cut taxes twice doubled the national debt, paid for his wars with emergency spending bills and just before he left office the entire economy crashed and was losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama started. This chart doesn't show all of it but we've now had 66 consecutive months of job growth in the U S.


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
Click to expand...

let's end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror so we can end our income tax of the Other Peoples' monies.


----------



## Campbell

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he would know...
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> *Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary.*
> In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only morons and liars conflate capital gain taxes with personal income taxes. Are you a moron or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which one are you moron or liar?
> 
> These are the facts and BTW it is the law...
> 
> Do you want to live in a country that double, triple, quadruple taxes you?
> 
> You need to figure out what our founders intentions where before you stick your foot in your mouth with me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off. I don't want any income taxes, as they are a form of indentured servitude and I'm against corporate taxes because they are double taxation.  Second, no, capital gains taxes are not the same as personal income taxes on wages, so it's not the law, and again you're either a moron or a liar which is it?  As for the founders intentions... I'm pretty sure they are dead and thus did not have any intentions with regard to your apparent opinion that because capital gains taxes are slightly lower than income taxes the rich are skating by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let's end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror so we can end our income tax of the Other Peoples' monies.
Click to expand...

Bullshit and horse kock!!

Just how rich do you want the assholes at the top, most of whom inherited their fortunes? They don't go to their own declared wars to fight and die, they don't even notice expenses like gasoline or sales tax and meanwhile when figured as a percentage ordinary people are already paying a higher percentage of their gross earnings in some kind of taxes. It's not rocket science... $0.40 a gallon gasoline tax isn't even noticed by a rich man but a poor asshole who's working two jobs for less than minimum wage does a lot more than notice it. When all taxes and fees on services plus payroll taxes are added together the ordinary Americans are paying at least 25% of everything they earn. See... rich people take their status for granted and if something isn't done to stop the inequities this country will surely have a revolt. They can't have it all!!!!!!


----------



## danielpalos

The point is a welfare-State has no need to tax other Peoples' incomes, directly; warfare-States do that due to their prioritization of command economics over Commerce well regulated.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> At the end of his presidency and still they blame Bush.  What a pathetic bunch of idiots
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk




Yet morons write books and go on right wing hate talk  radio and Faux 'News' to push the BS that Ronnie's economic miracle was responsible for Clinton's economy, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who was around when Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy knows what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history?
> 
> The problem with your little 1% vs. 99% graphs and charts is, they do not reflect the vast number of people who moved from middle to upper income and in some cases, from lower to upper income in that same time frame. It's as if you assume "The 1%" is a static group of people that never changes. However, it is a fluctuating group which changes daily.
> 
> It's important to note, Socialist propaganda relies on this misleading inference. It's the only way it can work. You begin with the premise we are all trapped in our class with no hope of ever escaping. Because... that's how it was in 19th century Europe and Asia, where Socialism cut it's teeth.
> 
> In OUR society, you have the freedom and liberty to escape your class. You are not a prisoner to class. With ambition, drive and determination, along with persistence, you can be one of the 1%. Our system has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.
Click to expand...



Yep, Bubba Boss is back with MORE lies

Yep, the GOP/CONservative policies ARE good to "create" billionaire,  middle class built on merit? Not so much

SOURCE OF YOU REAGAN BS? Oops

lol

SHOULD I POST HOW YOU LIE AND DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TAX SYSTEM AGAIN BUBS? LOL


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> Just how rich do you want the assholes at the top, most of whom inherited their fortunes?



As rich as they want to be and protected from little Commies like you.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK DRUGS ARE YOU ON?  I'm not double taxing anyone.  WTF makes you think I'm the US Government?
> No, DUMB ASS, you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT WAGE INCOME, YA MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought your IQ was over 70...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.  If your IQ is even half mine I'd be surprised.  There are many types of taxes federal, state, and regional.  Each tax may or may not be at the same rate.  One would have to be a COMPLETE FUCKING MORON to buy into the meme that people with capital gains income are getting a windfall because that type of income is taxed at a different rate than labor income.  A complete effing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no clue...
Click to expand...

You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
Click to expand...

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> You don't get it do you?



Oh, I think I DO get it... you just don't seem to get that I get it. You are a Communist. Whether you are a stupid and gullible person who got sucked in by the propaganda or you're one of the intellectuals who suck others in, I'm not sure... but no mistake, you ARE a Communist. 

It is your ideology which is responsible for well over 100 million deaths and countless human suffering over the last 150 years. An ideology in complete contradiction of America, the American way of life and everything America stands for. 

Right now, we are in a war of words with you. You are winning that war largely because we are a nation full of spoiled and disillusioned idiots who are easily led astray by your propaganda. I don't mind telling you that we will eventually have to fight a real war with you and we'll have to kill you to save our country. My fellow patriots don't have the stomach for that at this time but that day is coming.


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of his presidency and still they blame Bush.  What a pathetic bunch of idiots
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....it's OK for the Republicans to blame Jimmy Carter about everything from world war to the piles.
Click to expand...


If he is to blame, then he is to blame.

See the difference is, we actually look at the long term ramification of the real policies put in place, and who promoted those policies.

You seem to look at "That's a Republican, therefore is to blame.  That's a Democrat, therefore is perfection", and think that's a balanced approach.

I don't care about political parties.  When a Republican does something dumb, I call it out.  I was freakin out when Bush moved to bailout banks.

And when a Democrat actually does something smart, I call that out too. 

I've never seen you do anything even close to that.


----------



## Andylusion

GWV5903 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
Click to expand...


How.....?

Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.

Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.

You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.


----------



## RKMBrown

Andylusion said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
Click to expand...

Ayup raise taxes too high and people just say eff it... no way i'm working for nothing.  Same with investment taxes... why would I invest if the government is gonna take my profits and distribute them around?


----------



## Campbell

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Click to expand...


All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.


----------



## Campbell

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
Click to expand...


I'll just add this:

"From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period."


----------



## RKMBrown

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
Click to expand...

Liar.


----------



## Campbell

RKMBrown said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


Do you have trouble reading the English language??

CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute

From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people?  Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?  

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.

You are just wrong.   As you people always are.


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
Click to expand...


Who cares?   What difference does it make?   The only reason that matters, is because you are consumed with greed and envy.    The rest of us, who are not, don't care.  I don't give a crap what my CEO makes.   I agreed to work for an agreed wage.  As long as he pays me what I am due, I'm fine with whatever he makes.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> I'll just add this:
> "From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period."



Which is precisely what motivates thousands upon thousands daily to strive for more, to utilize a free enterprise system of free market capitalism to improve their lot in life and become something more than "a typical worker" or hopelessly tied to a class designation for life. 

All your rhetoric presupposes a society that has no freedom of mobility when it comes to class. This is because Socialism was designed to be promoted to the jealous underclass. 

If life is "impossible" as a "typical worker" don't BE one... BE something else! BE a BOSS!  *...You have the freedom to do that here*. You do not have the freedom to do that in a Socialist or Communist system.... Ironically, it is the very conditions you falsely portray of capitalism which you will ultimately get with a Socialist system, only, the so-called "top 1%" are the ruling class elite whom you will bow to or face beheading and which you will never be a part of.


----------



## RKMBrown

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
Click to expand...

Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.


----------



## GWV5903

Dad2three said:


> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol



In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.



Are dividends taxed?

Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*


----------



## Andylusion

RKMBrown said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.
Click to expand...


That's all they can do though.   Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people.  Cutting and pasting, is all they can do.   Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.



Anger issues? Did you forget your meds?

I understand my shoe size is higher than your IQ...


----------



## GWV5903

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
Click to expand...


Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...


----------



## Andylusion

GWV5903 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
Click to expand...


D2stupid, is a known troll.  He rarely, if ever, reads his own links.  He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.


----------



## GWV5903

Andylusion said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D2stupid, is a known troll.  He rarely, if ever, reads his own links.  He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.
Click to expand...


I know, we have traded post multiply times...

It clarifies who really elected Oblammer...

_D2stupid_ is pretty good...


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are dividends taxed?
> 
> Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*
Click to expand...

Point? 

What keeps confusing you about the simple fact that capital gains tax is not the same as federal income tax on wages?  You are comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anger issues? Did you forget your meds?
> 
> I understand my shoe size is higher than your IQ...
Click to expand...

You have a 160 shoe size?  What are you a clown?


----------



## Campbell

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Campbell

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
Click to expand...


You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
Click to expand...


First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.

Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?

Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.

Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.

But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.

In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.

Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.

So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.

And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.





Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.

Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.

If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

One million dollar cap on wealth.

The rest should be stolen and given to those bureaucratically chosen as deserving unearned handouts...

For the people comrades !


----------



## RKMBrown

LogikAndReazon said:


> One million dollar cap on wealth.
> 
> The rest should be stolen and given to those bureaucratically chosen as deserving unearned handouts...
> 
> For the people comrades !


Libtards ... can't shoot em... well not yet anyway.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are dividends taxed?
> 
> Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point?
> 
> What keeps confusing you about the simple fact that capital gains tax is not the same as federal income tax on wages?  You are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


I know it's hard for you to fathom, how do you think the 1% get paid? 

Do you think they live off of thin air?


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> You have a 160 shoe size? What are you a clown?



That was a good one...

Smartest thing you have said yet in this thread...


----------



## GWV5903

Campbell said:


> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.



So you know his daughter? 

And you know how she feels?

Her father earned it and he earned the right to do with as he pleased...


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are dividends taxed?
> 
> Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point?
> 
> What keeps confusing you about the simple fact that capital gains tax is not the same as federal income tax on wages?  You are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it's hard for you to fathom, how do you think the 1% get paid?
> 
> Do you think they live off of thin air?
Click to expand...

Many have assets that they inherited. Spending your inheritance after it has been taxed is not income.  Many have corporations that they created.  Those corporations buy corporate cars, corporate offices, corporate boats, corporate football tickets, corporate junkets, they buy food, they pay for "assistants." etc... The rich can move their assets to island nations that don't charge high taxes... they can do whatever the fuck they want to with their assets.

Federal income tax is not a tax on that which you need to live off.  It's indentured servitude.

No one actually needs an income to live.  You can live off the land and bartering. The rich can do the same.  Most rich folks that you dumb ass demcrats complain about are retired people who have nest eggs.  They live off their savings.  Yes I know you scum want everyone's retirement nest egg too. You communists are such scum.


----------



## GWV5903

RKMBrown said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are dividends taxed?
> 
> Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point?
> 
> What keeps confusing you about the simple fact that capital gains tax is not the same as federal income tax on wages?  You are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it's hard for you to fathom, how do you think the 1% get paid?
> 
> Do you think they live off of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many have assets that they inherited. Spending your inheritance after it has been taxed is not income.  Many have corporations that they created.  Those corporations buy corporate cars, corporate offices, corporate boats, corporate football tickets, corporate junkets, they buy food, they pay for "assistants." etc... The rich can move their assets to island nations that don't charge high taxes... they can do whatever the fuck they want to with their assets.
> 
> Federal income tax is not a tax on that which you need to live off.  It's indentured servitude.
> 
> No one actually needs an income to live.  You can live off the land and bartering. The rich can do the same.  Most rich folks that you dumb ass demcrats complain about are retired people who have nest eggs.  They live off their savings.  Yes I know you scum want everyone's retirement nest egg too. You communists are such scum.
Click to expand...


I now realize how easy it was for Obama to get elected...


----------



## RKMBrown

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the effing moron that thinks capital gains tax is the same thing as federal income tax on wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are dividends taxed?
> 
> Qualified dividends, such as most of those paid on corporate stocks, *are taxed at long term capital gains rates* — which are lower than ordinary income tax rates. *Nonqualified dividends, however, are taxed at the higher ordinary income tax rates.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point?
> 
> What keeps confusing you about the simple fact that capital gains tax is not the same as federal income tax on wages?  You are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it's hard for you to fathom, how do you think the 1% get paid?
> 
> Do you think they live off of thin air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many have assets that they inherited. Spending your inheritance after it has been taxed is not income.  Many have corporations that they created.  Those corporations buy corporate cars, corporate offices, corporate boats, corporate football tickets, corporate junkets, they buy food, they pay for "assistants." etc... The rich can move their assets to island nations that don't charge high taxes... they can do whatever the fuck they want to with their assets.
> 
> Federal income tax is not a tax on that which you need to live off.  It's indentured servitude.
> 
> No one actually needs an income to live.  You can live off the land and bartering. The rich can do the same.  Most rich folks that you dumb ass demcrats complain about are retired people who have nest eggs.  They live off their savings.  Yes I know you scum want everyone's retirement nest egg too. You communists are such scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now realize how easy it was for Obama to get elected...
Click to expand...

Ayup .. it was because of idiots like you that voted for Bush as if a moderate socialist / religious wing nut would be the way to save the country from socialism.  What's he do? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.. EXPAND MEDICARE.. COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ALL TAXES FOR THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE COUNTRY MAKING THESE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT ANY TAXATION.


----------



## Campbell

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


You don't know shit!

In 1937 my dad was working 12 hours a day in a box factory. The 12 hours brought him in a cool $4.00 a week. There was no such thing as hospitalization, healthcare programs, minimum wage, vacation, personal time off, etc. There were no pensions and there were no labor unions. If you were there and worked hard you were paid and if you weren't you weren't. There was one thing though....if the foreman didn't like the way you combed your hair he fired you. "Pick Up Your Pay" was the words nobody wanted to hear because there were half a dozen men wanting the job and the companies knew it. My Dad ruptured himself unloading a skid and after the second day he was out they replaced him. My granddaddy had a farm so we moved back with them till Daddy healed. In 1938 or so my daddy went to work on one of Roosevelt's relief programs...the WPA. He was earning $3.60 a week for 48 hours and in those days a small family could get by with that amount. Kerosene was $0.11 a gallon and ten pounds of potatoes was about a dime. When the war started my dad managed to get a job at the shell loading plant at Milan, TN which was operated by Procter and Gamble. From then on we did pretty good. In 1944 Dad started work for Union Carbide in the plants at Oak Ridge and after that everything was better.

Have you ever heard of "Poor Houses?" Each county would own an old shanty with a couple of acres of land and old, sick, poverty stricken people would end up there and the ones who could still do a little work would raise enough vegetables and fruit to can and preserve and keep everyone alive. In the late 1940's when people began to first draw social security the county poorhouses began to disappear. There are still graveyards all over this country with unmarked graves where those old poverty stricken folks were buried.

It's pretty obvious what you like. Staying at home and drawing very good pay while poor kids who can't afford college go 10,000 miles to some god-for-saken desert to fight and die in some Republican oil war. I've seen this shit all my life. I was in the military in 1957,58 and in the Tennessee National Guards till the mid sixties. At one time for a few years because of my weekend jobs playing dance band piano I was drawing 3 paychecks a week. It paid off....now I'm retired on a nice place on the lake with a modern, floating dock and a new South Bay pontoon boat docked inside.

I watched labor unions get better benefits for working people and was a member of a union myself for the first ten years I worked. Local 9-288 in the OCAW. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers. I saw unions methodically get benefits for workers...all workers not just their members. The companies were adamant that union members would never get any kind of benefit that their technical and management employees didn't have. Sometimes after negotiations and some times a strike when the company had give in to the union the technical and management personnel would get the benefit sometimes just a few weeks before the union workers. Unions made the middle class and appropriate tax rates on everybody made it able to exist.

Of course you've gathered that I never attended college...never could afford it till after I had children and continuous responsibilities. That's the key to stopping some of this madness where the money continues to creep to the top. The haves love for the have not's to stay low. While the uppercrust attends ivy league schools the "Pore Folks" go fight their wars and do the best they can. I did fine by my 3 children. Two have master's degrees and the other one works at a level GS14 for the Department of Energy in Oak Ridge. My eight grandchildren are on a good path. Two have graduated from college and one is presently enrolled at Roane State Community College in east TN, one at MTSU and one at NCSU in Raleigh, NC.

Ronald Reagan was an ex Democrat.....the reason, his B Movies began to make some serious dollars and he resented paying his income tax. Here's a man that without his looks would have never amounted to shit but with his looks was twice elected to the highest office in the land. History includes his slashing of tax rates for the richest Americans and the beginning of the end of the middle class. When he fired the PATCO union when they were striking for better working conditions for one of the most pressured occupations in the world, air traffic controllers, that began the demise of organized labor:











*Notice that after Bill Clinton's two terms the uppercrust was moving toward normal but George W. Bush put a stop to that with his two tax cuts for wealthiest Americans:*


----------



## danielpalos

Campbell said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
Click to expand...

 i believe our economy needs the equivalent to an oil pump to recirculate money in our economy.


----------



## Campbell

danielpalos said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe our economy needs the equivalent to an oil pump to recirculate money in our economy.
Click to expand...


Not a bad idea.....the one we have is pumping upward 24/7.


----------



## danielpalos

Campbell said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll just add this:
> 
> "From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period."
Click to expand...

why did this happen?  could capital gains micromanagement by our federal Congress, have resulted in a more equitable distribution of income for labor?


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?   What difference does it make?   The only reason that matters, is because you are consumed with greed and envy.    The rest of us, who are not, don't care.  I don't give a crap what my CEO makes.   I agreed to work for an agreed wage.  As long as he pays me what I am due, I'm fine with whatever he makes.
Click to expand...

normally it would not be an issue; but, it can make a difference when viewed from the perspective that the wealthiest can even afford to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses even while on means tested corporate welfare, while the least wealthy seem to not even be able to afford their expressly enumerated rights under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just add this:
> "From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely what motivates thousands upon thousands daily to strive for more, to utilize a free enterprise system of free market capitalism to improve their lot in life and become something more than "a typical worker" or hopelessly tied to a class designation for life.
> 
> All your rhetoric presupposes a society that has no freedom of mobility when it comes to class. This is because Socialism was designed to be promoted to the jealous underclass.
> 
> If life is "impossible" as a "typical worker" don't BE one... BE something else! BE a BOSS!  *...You have the freedom to do that here*. You do not have the freedom to do that in a Socialist or Communist system.... Ironically, it is the very conditions you falsely portray of capitalism which you will ultimately get with a Socialist system, only, the so-called "top 1%" are the ruling class elite whom you will bow to or face beheading and which you will never be a part of.
Click to expand...

The context is that there are plenty of "unfilled positions" that simply don't pay enough to be filled for full employment purposes; and, it should come out of the capital gains preference, not labor.


----------



## danielpalos

Campbell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe our economy needs the equivalent to an oil pump to recirculate money in our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a bad idea.....the one we have is pumping upward 24/7.
Click to expand...

a good oil pump does not allow for any friction of a natural rate of unemployment by pumping liquidity through our economy regardless of whether or not labor is idling or not.


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all they can do though.   Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people.  Cutting and pasting, is all they can do.   Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.
Click to expand...

some on the left get nothing but fallacy, repeal, and mere rejection from the right.


----------



## danielpalos

Campbell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
Click to expand...

Yes, when socialism was bailing out capitalism, like usual.   The Right usually Only complains the most about Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.


----------



## danielpalos

LogikAndReazon said:


> One million dollar cap on wealth.
> 
> The rest should be stolen and given to those bureaucratically chosen as deserving unearned handouts...
> 
> For the people comrades !


i see you that, my Good Comrade and raise you, 

no cap on incomes 

and 

simple compliance with existing laws regarding employment at will for labor to self-select their "unearned" handout simply for that capital division of labor and individual liberty, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

For the People, comrades!


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> The context is that there are plenty of "unfilled positions" that simply don't pay enough to be filled for full employment purposes; and, it should come out of the capital gains preference, not labor.



I don't know what you are trying to say because you're words aren't making sense here. 

I have no idea what you mean by "unfilled positions that don't pay enough.." If a capitalist has a position available, it has to pay enough if he fills it. If he doesn't fill it, perhaps it's because he isn't offering enough? If he has people breaking down his door to get it, perhaps he is offering too much? Or maybe he is offering about right but there is a lack of supply or abundance of supply of labor? Jobs are not confined to a single moronic liberal birdbrain scenario... they vary widely across many different fields. 

Now what I think maybe you are trying to say is... you want capitalists to pay people more for labor. But the problem is, free market capitalism isn't determined by your whims or your emotive bleating. It works on principles of supply and demand. So if you want better paying jobs, you have to increase demand for labor or reduce supply of labor. Trying to mandate what you want into being through political power isn't working and isn't going to ever work.


----------



## Campbell

danielpalos said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, when socialism was bailing out capitalism, like usual.   The Right usually Only complains the most about Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.
Click to expand...


Yep....ever notice how they want to change the subject when George W. Bush's unreasonable tax cut(s) at the beginning of his first term resulted in the deepest recession since the great depression?


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> One million dollar cap on wealth.
> 
> The rest should be stolen and given to those bureaucratically chosen as deserving unearned handouts...
> 
> For the people comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards ... can't shoot em... well not yet anyway.
Click to expand...

i am on the left, so that is not an option; and, i need to bargain as a result.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context is that there are plenty of "unfilled positions" that simply don't pay enough to be filled for full employment purposes; and, it should come out of the capital gains preference, not labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are trying to say because you're words aren't making sense here.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "unfilled positions that don't pay enough.." If a capitalist has a position available, it has to pay enough if he fills it. If he doesn't fill it, perhaps it's because he isn't offering enough? If he has people breaking down his door to get it, perhaps he is offering too much? Or maybe he is offering about right but there is a lack of supply or abundance of supply of labor? Jobs are not confined to a single moronic liberal birdbrain scenario... they vary widely across many different fields.
> 
> Now what I think maybe you are trying to say is... you want capitalists to pay people more for labor. But the problem is, free market capitalism isn't determined by your whims or your emotive bleating. It works on principles of supply and demand. So if you want better paying jobs, you have to increase demand for labor or reduce supply of labor. Trying to mandate what you want into being through political power isn't working and isn't going to ever work.
Click to expand...


you merely need a clue and a Cause regarding that which you claim to want; capitalism and the laws of demand and supply.

any unfilled positions mean they are simply not paying enough under any form of capitalism.  and, since the capital gains preference is supposed to help with full employment, it should come out of that, not labor.  there are no unfilled positions under any form of Capitalism, only "stingy Capitalists".


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Certainly unions and progressively led companies or more accurately collectives are paying their labor exactly what they are worth.

A workers paradise....

NO ???     Lol


----------



## Sallow

Desperado said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

States get "block grants" from the Federal government which is suppose to be used to cover short falls in their own revenue. That use to be in addition to "ear marks" which have basically gone the way of "cooperation" with the current configuration of the government.


----------



## Sallow

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
Click to expand...


That's a bunch of Marlarkey.

Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending as a "stimulus" (Read huge gift to his buddies in the defense industry). Things got so bad he had to go, hat in hand, and beg Tip O'Neill to bail him out. Tip responded with one of the biggest tax increases in US history with the burden shifted mostly on the working poor. TIPs and unemployment income being taxed were two examples of brand spanking new taxes signed into law by President Reagan.


----------



## dcraelin

Kevin Phillips book "Arrogant Capital" is very instructive on the relationship of the rich to a countries debt............many make a living out of national debt........so in some ways want it high.....but also don't want to see a country default. ...So those types of influential people probably dont ever want to see our debt go down to far, certainly not to zero.

this explains in part why they try to manipulate the debate to ignore debt levels resulting from low taxes on the wealthy. 

China props up our nation  with a huge amount of debt purchase.....but they are having troubles themselves now..........so our level of sustainable debt is going down......

Which means it is more important than ever to tax the wealthy at higher levels in order not to become like Greece.


----------



## Sallow

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire infrastructure was built for one need and one need only....for national defense...
> 
> What the commoner got was a perk.
> 
> You do know that don't you?
Click to expand...


This is partially true and mostly false.


----------



## danielpalos

LogikAndReazon said:


> Certainly unions and progressively led companies or more accurately collectives are paying their labor exactly what they are worth.
> 
> A workers paradise....
> 
> NO ???     Lol


no idea; it should depend on what their collective bargaining agreements stipulate.  

it should not be any worse than labor with no collective bargaining ability.


----------



## easyt65

Liberals don't really want Americans to 'pay their fair share'.  While BEING filthy rich themselves (Democratic Party and Liberal Elitist leaders), they either seek to pay as little as they can or simply don't pay their taxes, while advocating taking as much in taxes from everyone else that they can to fund their 'freebie' give-aways, donor payoffs, and *special projects designed to keep them in power.office.

46% of Americans do not pay taxes in this country, partly due to the Liberal program of 'Economic Slavery', a program designed to keep most Americans UN-successful and dependent on govt hand-outs in exchange for votes to keep the programs fully funded and the 'freebies' coming. The downside to this is that as the number of people dependent on the govt grows the fewer there are who you can tax...and to keep paying for all this as the number of recipients grows you have to keep taxing / taking more and more from the fewer and fewer there are left to pay for it all.   That's why the old factual saying remains true: 'Socialism is GREAT until the Leaders/Self-Appointed Czars run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY...and why every nation that has gone down this road and has embraced Socialism has FAILED...as in 'has COLLAPESD'!

'Fair Tax'. Get rid of the corrupt, biased IRS. Everyone has to pay a percentage. No more huge companies paying no taxes. No more allowing companies to take their businesses overseas to take advantage of slave labor then bringing the goods back into the US as if they were made here - put such a high import tariff on the goods coming back in that it will be cheaper to manufacture things back here in the states.


----------



## danielpalos

Sallow said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income for taxes. We should all be taxed the same. Why punish wealth? Why punish success? Why tax one citizen any more than another? If one person is taxed 15% of their income, then everyone should be taxed at a 15% rate. We're all citizens. We all share highways, bridges, national defense, schools, libraries, fire departments, law enforcement, and other public services.
> 
> 
> 
> The wealthy benefit more from schools, roads, bridges, national defense, law enforcement and other public services than average Americans......they should pay more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute: how are they benefiting more than anybody else?  Even if they were, they are paying more than anybody else so it's already fair in that regard.
> 
> The wealthy don't need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP's cards, Obama phones, school lunch programs just to name a few.  If anybody benefits more, it's the poor because they put little to nothing into those programs and take all they can out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without roads, bridges, harbors, railroads a corporation has no way to get critical supplies in and finished product out. Corporate America would cease to exist
> 
> Common workers need roads to get to work and visit grandma occasionally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than interstates the roads are a state expense.  paid for by license fees and gas taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely true.
> 
> States get "block grants" from the Federal government which is suppose to be used to cover short falls in their own revenue. That use to be in addition to "ear marks" which have basically gone the way of "cooperation" with the current configuration of the government.
Click to expand...

I believe the general government is obligated to pay the debts of the several United States; especially when advancing federal Standards for the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Sallow said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bunch of Marlarkey.
> 
> Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending as a "stimulus" (Read huge gift to his buddies in the defense industry). Things got so bad he had to go, hat in hand, and beg Tip O'Neill to bail him out. Tip responded with one of the biggest tax increases in US history with the burden shifted mostly on the working poor. TIPs and unemployment income being taxed were two examples of brand spanking new taxes signed into law by President Reagan.
Click to expand...

some on the left believe our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are merely forms of job creation by our more, nationalized and socialized, politicians.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
Click to expand...


We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.



> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.



He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
Click to expand...

Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.


----------



## Campbell

Sallow said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bunch of Marlarkey.
> 
> Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending as a "stimulus" (Read huge gift to his buddies in the defense industry). Things got so bad he had to go, hat in hand, and beg Tip O'Neill to bail him out. Tip responded with one of the biggest tax increases in US history with the burden shifted mostly on the working poor. TIPs and unemployment income being taxed were two examples of brand spanking new taxes signed into law by President Reagan.
Click to expand...


Tax increases during the Reagan years? Horse Shit!! Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the wealthy in early 1993 while he still had a Democrat majority. Then....he went ahead and presided over one of the most successful eras in our history. He balanced the budget, even generated $400 billion of surpluses and left the economy in a shape which would have already completely paid off the national debt. When George W. Bush took over the first thing he did was cut taxes for the well off twice, 2001 and 2003 then proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. "*Tax and Spend"* Democrats and *"Spend and Debt"* Republicans.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
Click to expand...


I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
Click to expand...

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.


----------



## hadit

Campbell said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's tax cuts brought in almost 2 times the amount in taxes than before, and the democrats in congress spent even more than that........they lied to Reagan about cutting spending and he learned his lesson about congressional democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bunch of Marlarkey.
> 
> Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending as a "stimulus" (Read huge gift to his buddies in the defense industry). Things got so bad he had to go, hat in hand, and beg Tip O'Neill to bail him out. Tip responded with one of the biggest tax increases in US history with the burden shifted mostly on the working poor. TIPs and unemployment income being taxed were two examples of brand spanking new taxes signed into law by President Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax increases during the Reagan years? Horse Shit!! Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the wealthy in early 1993 while he still had a Democrat majority. Then....he went ahead and presided over one of the most successful eras in our history. He balanced the budget, even generated $400 billion of surpluses and left the economy in a shape which would have already completely paid off the national debt. When George W. Bush took over the first thing he did was cut taxes for the well off twice, 2001 and 2003 then proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. "*Tax and Spend"* Democrats and *"Spend and Debt"* Republicans.
Click to expand...

$400 billion?  I require a source for that number.


----------



## Campbell

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
Click to expand...


Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. When Obama took office the annual interest on the existing debt was so high that now over two trillion extra dollars have been borrowed during his terms just to pay it. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:

.....................Total U S Debt....................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Is Obama a big spender?


----------



## hadit

Campbell said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Click to expand...

You left out quite a bit.  You know, the part where the debt will have doubled again by the time the latest occupant of the White House leaves, after accumulating more debt than all the other presidents combined.  Sorry, but you don't get to act like the last 7 years didn't happen.


----------



## 2aguy

Campbell said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Click to expand...



Yeah….you forgot where Reagan made a debt to cut spending and the democrats lied and just kept spending….little detail…big difference.


----------



## 2aguy

hadit said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out quite a bit.  You know, the part where the debt will have doubled again by the time the latest occupant of the White House leaves, after accumulating more debt than all the other presidents combined.  Sorry, but you don't get to act like the last 7 years didn't happen.
Click to expand...



Of course he does, he is a lefty….history only starts when they wake up in the morning.   And of course the fact that the problem isn't taxes, but excessive spending will never enter his brain either.


----------



## hadit

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You act as if you can just "make them pay it".   You can't.
> 
> Do you not realize how many hundreds of wealthy have a salary of $1?   Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.
> 
> What tax hike do you propose we pass, that will make the rich pay more tax?
> 
> Again, this whole ideology is exactly what Greece tried to do.   They tried to "make the rich pay the debt"... and look how that turned out.
Click to expand...

I am reminded of the infamous yacht tax that was supposed to really stick it to those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building business and eliminate some really good paying jobs.  And it didn't generate any new revenue.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In August 2011, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the _New York Times_ in which he made the assertion that his* 2010 “federal tax rate” of 17.4 percent was 18.6 percentage points less than the 36.0 percent average rate paid by the 20 other workers in his office.*
> 
> 
> Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule,(*MIN 30% ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES!*)  has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress.
> 
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> Let me guess? Buffet is "wrong" because he uses the payroll taxes the office pays? LIKE THE CBO, TREASURY, etc do too when figuring EFFECTIVE tax rates?
Click to expand...

There's nothing that stops Buffet from becoming a man who puts his money where his mouth is.  The treasury will accept extra money from him.  Naturally, he's all hat and no cattle.


----------



## hadit

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?   What difference does it make?   The only reason that matters, is because you are consumed with greed and envy.    The rest of us, who are not, don't care.  I don't give a crap what my CEO makes.   I agreed to work for an agreed wage.  As long as he pays me what I am due, I'm fine with whatever he makes.
Click to expand...

I don't even care how much money Paris Hilton has, and she didn't earn it.  Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if she pumps more into the economy in a single weekend shopping in Beverly Hills than I do in a year's living.


----------



## hadit

GWV5903 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anger issues? Did you forget your meds?
> 
> I understand my shoe size is higher than your IQ...
Click to expand...

It's glaringly obvious to the smart people that the "debater" who starts calling people childish names is not articulating a coherent, winning argument.


----------



## hadit

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
Click to expand...

Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> Kevin Phillips book "Arrogant Capital" is very instructive on the relationship of the rich to a countries debt............many make a living out of national debt........so in some ways want it high.....but also don't want to see a country default. ...So those types of influential people probably dont ever want to see our debt go down to far, certainly not to zero.
> 
> this explains in part why they try to manipulate the debate to ignore debt levels resulting from low taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> China props up our nation  with a huge amount of debt purchase.....but they are having troubles themselves now..........so our level of sustainable debt is going down......
> 
> Which means it is more important than ever to tax the wealthy at higher levels in order not to become like Greece.


If you're going to do that, you must also stop the increase in spending.  Heck, if we even just froze the budget at current levels and only allowed it to increase by the amount of inflation, it would quickly be in balance.  As it stands now, however, any new revenue would be met by even greater levels of spending, thus getting us nowhere.  Tie any tax increase dollar for dollar to spending cuts and you might get somewhere.


----------



## Boss

danielpalos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The context is that there are plenty of "unfilled positions" that simply don't pay enough to be filled for full employment purposes; and, it should come out of the capital gains preference, not labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are trying to say because you're words aren't making sense here.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "unfilled positions that don't pay enough.." If a capitalist has a position available, it has to pay enough if he fills it. If he doesn't fill it, perhaps it's because he isn't offering enough? If he has people breaking down his door to get it, perhaps he is offering too much? Or maybe he is offering about right but there is a lack of supply or abundance of supply of labor? Jobs are not confined to a single moronic liberal birdbrain scenario... they vary widely across many different fields.
> 
> Now what I think maybe you are trying to say is... you want capitalists to pay people more for labor. But the problem is, free market capitalism isn't determined by your whims or your emotive bleating. It works on principles of supply and demand. So if you want better paying jobs, you have to increase demand for labor or reduce supply of labor. Trying to mandate what you want into being through political power isn't working and isn't going to ever work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you merely need a clue and a Cause regarding that which you claim to want; capitalism and the laws of demand and supply.
> 
> any unfilled positions mean they are simply not paying enough under any form of capitalism.  and, since the capital gains preference is supposed to help with full employment, it should come out of that, not labor.  there are no unfilled positions under any form of Capitalism, only "stingy Capitalists".
Click to expand...


Again... what in the hell are you talking about? You sound like a total moron trying to use big people words and failing badly. "Capital gains" are gains made when financial capital is used and generally refers to a tax which is subsequently applied to those gains. I don't have a clue what you mean by "preference is supposed to help" ...it makes no sense.

"Stingy" capitalists are the same as "greedy" capitalists, they don't last very long in a free market system. Another capitalist always comes along who is less stingy, less greedy and who is more than willing to take their business.

It sounds as if you don't really have a clue as to how free market capitalism works. I guess you somehow think a free market capitalist's first priority and reason to exist is to provide jobs that pay well for people. Sorry, that is not how free market capitalism works. In fact, I don't even know what kind of system that is... Narnia Capitalism?


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
Click to expand...


we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.


----------



## dcraelin

Campbell said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. When Obama took office the annual interest on the existing debt was so high that now over two trillion extra dollars have been borrowed during his terms just to pay it. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> Is Obama a big spender?
Click to expand...


yep its like Kevin Phillips said..........the rich love debt...you can see how when we were getting close to a point where the debt would be paid off............republicans pushed tax cuts to increase the debt again.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Phillips book "Arrogant Capital" is very instructive on the relationship of the rich to a countries debt............many make a living out of national debt........so in some ways want it high.....but also don't want to see a country default. ...So those types of influential people probably dont ever want to see our debt go down to far, certainly not to zero.
> 
> this explains in part why they try to manipulate the debate to ignore debt levels resulting from low taxes on the wealthy.
> 
> China props up our nation  with a huge amount of debt purchase.....but they are having troubles themselves now..........so our level of sustainable debt is going down......
> 
> Which means it is more important than ever to tax the wealthy at higher levels in order not to become like Greece.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to do that, you must also stop the increase in spending.  Heck, if we even just froze the budget at current levels and only allowed it to increase by the amount of inflation, it would quickly be in balance.  As it stands now, however, any new revenue would be met by even greater levels of spending, thus getting us nowhere.  Tie any tax increase dollar for dollar to spending cuts and you might get somewhere.
Click to expand...


I doubt your assertion that freezing would quickly bring budget to balance.   but tieing tax increases to spending cuts may be a bi-partisan answer.


----------



## bedowin62

there is no level of taxation that will keep pace with what the Left promises or proposes.
if you cant admit that why rant about the rich?


----------



## Campbell

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!! Held Bill Clinton's spending in check!! Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the rich and paid for his spending. The goddam Republican party has been cutting taxes ever since Reagan and the stupid bastards never have cut their spending a dime. They borrowed from foreign banks. I'll bet that was one helluva Fox News Report that pulled that rubbish out of their ass for you. Modern Republicans stand for the wealthy and corporations and the only other thing that comes to mind is BOMB, BOMB, BOMB.....BOMB BOMB IRAN!! The Republicans have never seen a war they didn't love...just as long as the kids of folks who couldn't afford college go to some miserable desert 10,000 miles from home to fight and die in it!

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)*
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


----------



## bedowin62

actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax


geesh

Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and  believe at least 4 years in the Senate
Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Londoner

During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history.. 

And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.

So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages. 

We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive. 

The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden. 

You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue. 

However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.

This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive. 

American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).

In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so fucking strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs. 

You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.

It was a fucking nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.

Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.


----------



## Boss

Londoner said:


> During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..
> 
> And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.
> 
> So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.
> 
> We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.
> 
> The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.
> 
> You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.
> 
> However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.
> 
> This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.
> 
> American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).
> 
> In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so fucking strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.
> 
> You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.
> 
> It was a fucking nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.
> 
> Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.
> 
> We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.



Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born. 

In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here. 

You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.


----------



## Campbell

bedowin62 said:


> actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax
> 
> 
> geesh
> 
> Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and  believe at least 4 years in the Senate
> Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



By god I know the Republicans weren't responsible for anything good during Clinton's tenure. They had constant investigations going on for the entire two terms and finally impeached him for a blow job. I got so tired of seeing and listening to Kenneth Starr that I could have puked. That little fiasco cost American tax payers over $100,000,000 and they still didn't manage to remove him from office and he left at the end of his terms at a 65% approval rating. Bud!! You should start watching something besides Faux News.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..
> 
> And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.
> 
> So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.
> 
> We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.
> 
> The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.
> 
> You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.
> 
> However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.
> 
> This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.
> 
> American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).
> 
> In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so fucking strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.
> 
> You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.
> 
> It was a fucking nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.
> 
> Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.
> 
> We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born.
> 
> In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here.
> 
> You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.
Click to expand...


If you had been around back in the 30's following Hoover's depression you would feel differently. Hell....Hoover couldn't do anything about the banks and they closed their doors. George W. Bush would have had a bigger catastrophe at the end of his two terms if he hadn't been able to hand the most powerful financial institutions in the world three quarters of a trillion dollars. Republicans are full of shit and all the modern GOP stands for is corporations and the wealthy. One thing for sure...they'll never win another presidential election and if not for gerrymandering and hindering the poorest people in the country's voting rights they wouldn't win any kind of election. Blacks, Hispanics, Poor people, Trans genders, Gays, Lesbians, most young people etc. will continue to support the Democratic party because they're smart enough to see who takes care of them.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Tip for parasites......

Its not the govt's job to take care of you..... Hope that helps.


----------



## danielpalos

Campbell said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax
> 
> 
> geesh
> 
> Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and  believe at least 4 years in the Senate
> Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By god I know the Republicans weren't responsible for anything good during Clinton's tenure. They had constant investigations going on for the entire two terms and finally impeached him for a blow job. I got so tired of seeing and listening to Kenneth Starr that I could have puked. That little fiasco cost American tax payers over $100,000,000 and they still didn't manage to remove him from office and he left at the end of his terms at a 65% approval rating. Bud!! You should start watching something besides Faux News.
Click to expand...

That may have been when the right started losing credibility when asking for _honest Injeun_ contingents for their Cause; the left refuses due to excessive bifurcation by the Right.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..
> 
> And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.
> 
> So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.
> 
> We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.
> 
> The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.
> 
> You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.
> 
> However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.
> 
> This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.
> 
> American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).
> 
> In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so fucking strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.
> 
> You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.
> 
> It was a fucking nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.
> 
> Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.
> 
> We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born.
> 
> In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here.
> 
> You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.
Click to expand...


Be Anything We Please!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school. What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq? The naivety of Republicans never ceases to amaze me. 'Course right here in east TN it's even worse. Just to keep the state bright red the gun totin, tobakky chewing, truck driving class always votes Republican. They don't care as long as they can keep wheels on their homes.

Last year I bought a new pontoon boat. The salesman I dealt with told me he was living down the road on an abandoned industrial site in a camping trailer. Guess what?? Yep....a Republican.

That's not the end of it. Every barber shop, doctor's waiting room, automobile dealership etc. has their TV's tuned to Fox News and if you're not prepared to fight it would be best to leave it alone and not say shit!

Something else. I've had several pre cancerous growths removed from my face. My dermatologist never fails to mention what god has done for him lately while he's working on me. The waiting room there has a big copy with oversized print of the holly bibble beside every place to sit. I've never made a sound. When a man has a scalpel near the nose it wouldn't be advisable to get in a political or religious argument...either one.


----------



## danielpalos

Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.


----------



## Campbell

danielpalos said:


> Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.



Oh they've got things going their way. Look at this and make note that the lowest half of earners haven't even broken even when adjusted for inflation:


----------



## danielpalos

I believe this is a legitimate question that should be advanced to our elected representatives in order to acquire and possess an answer even more comprehensive and definitive than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine; regarding the Utility of a Capital Gains preference.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?



No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.



No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
Click to expand...


Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.


----------



## danielpalos

would they bother with that form of employment if they could simply apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


----------



## kyzr

Not to butt in, but I tend to like the Bernie Sanders transaction tax on stock trades.  He would use it to pay for college.  I'd use it for SS and Medicare too.  There is no benefit to high frequency computer trades.  The purpose of the stock market is to raise capital and create jobs.  The current system is a cash cow for traders who just steal our 401k funds.  I'd also raise tax rates on short-sellers.  The object is to create jobs.

Slimming down the tax code by closing loop-holes is a good idea.  A small national sales tax would also get everyone to pay something.


----------



## Papageorgio

Campbell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
Click to expand...


Bitter and envious. Pretty sad that at 80 you are still a bitter old person. You realized the Kennedy kids did nothing and took their daddy's bootlegging money. They drank, partied and killed. Funny how you don't care about that.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.
Click to expand...


Tell me something. What the hell has the modern Republican party ever done for anybody except the wealthy and corporations? They've spent like there's no tomorrow while cutting taxes and borrowing from foreign governments. If you count annual interest payments on existing debt they've caused 75% of the national debt and when Bill Clinton left a balanced budget with surpluses projected throughout the foreseeable future George W. Bush came along and increased his spending while cutting taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003 using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition. He funded his unnecessary wars with emergency spending bills...off budget. George Bush crashed the economy and handed 3/4 of a trillion dollars to the most powerful financial institutions in the world as he left office. I still believe that whole fiasco was cooked in the books and previously arranged. I wouldn't trust any of the greedy son-of-a-bitches in the shithouse with a muzzle on.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
Click to expand...

You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.


----------



## hadit

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
Click to expand...

I wonder why it's so impossible to even contemplate a career in a skill that doesn't require extensive schooling, like plumbing, carpentry, welding, automotive repair or electrical work?  You can make good money in those fields.


----------



## hadit

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.
Click to expand...

My brother-in-law is a classic case in point.  He didn't finish high school, but apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for a couple of years just to learn the trade.  Now he owns his own shop and is a huge success.  It can be done, but it's not easy.  It requires taking big risks and being 110% committed.  Maybe that's the problem.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
Click to expand...


well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
Click to expand...

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
Click to expand...


well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........


----------



## Campbell

Papageorgio said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitter and envious. Pretty sad that at 80 you are still a bitter old person. You realized the Kennedy kids did nothing and took their daddy's bootlegging money. They drank, partied and killed. Funny how you don't care about that.
Click to expand...


If not for John Kennedy starting the moon landing project and Lyndon Johnson following through on it your foolish ass might be speaking Russian. Not only that the requirement for smaller electronic components brought about the development of micro circuitry and set this nation onto a path which brought us into the modern age which supports computers in homes, in cars, in planes and even on folk's arms. Since Dwight Eisenhower started the Interstate highway project the Republicans have never started any kind of government program which benefitted the common man. They're too goddam tied up with wars. Like I said, they've become the party of rich folks and corporations. Like I told you before, "TRICKLE DOWN" didn't work!!

This Did!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown

Campbell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they've got things going their way. Look at this and make note that the lowest half of earners haven't even broken even when adjusted for inflation:
Click to expand...

You're a moron.  You see the bottom 10% being 16% higher as a bad thing.  You see the middle being 25% higher as a bad thing.  You see the upper middle class doubling as a bad thing.  You see the rich being 300% higher as a bad thing.  You Know why you see these as bad things?  Because you're dumb ass piece of shit that can't even crack the bottom 1%.  And who do you blame for not being rich?  The people who are successful.  ROFL  What a dumb ass communist piece of shit you are.  You want to move from the bottom to the top?  GET  UP OFF YOUR ASS.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
Click to expand...


Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life. 

I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success. 

You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.
> 
> I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.
> 
> You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.
Click to expand...

Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever.  They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static.  When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile.  Yeah well I was a kid in high school.  I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28.  Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder.  I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.
> 
> I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.
> 
> You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever.  They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static.  When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile.  Yeah well I was a kid in high school.  I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28.  Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder.  I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.
Click to expand...


It's because the propaganda strategy developed to promote Socialism was forged in that environment. Across 19th century Europe and Asia, kings and dictators ruled over class (or caste) systems where people were born, lived and died in the same class. You couldn't ever be part of the upper class. It wasn't an option, you didn't get that opportunity. So someone comes along and promises something better for your class... Socialism is born.

The problem with Socialism is, it doesn't work on a large scale. It quickly becomes corrupted and a "ruling class" emerges. Then you still have this "evil Top 1%" but now they really ARE evil because they control both the money AND power, and if you give them trouble they shoot you in the head. The ONLY examples of successful socialist systems are where the community is isolated, close-knit, with little to no immigration or mobility of people due to climate, culture or resources.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.
> 
> I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.
> 
> You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever.  They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static.  When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile.  Yeah well I was a kid in high school.  I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28.  Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder.  I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because the propaganda strategy developed to promote Socialism was forged in that environment. Across 19th century Europe and Asia, kings and dictators ruled over class (or caste) systems where people were born, lived and died in the same class. You couldn't ever be part of the upper class. It wasn't an option, you didn't get that opportunity. So someone comes along and promises something better for your class... Socialism is born.
> 
> The problem with Socialism is, it doesn't work on a large scale. It quickly becomes corrupted and a "ruling class" emerges. Then you still have this "evil Top 1%" but now they really ARE evil because they control both the money AND power, and if you give them trouble they shoot you in the head. The ONLY examples of successful socialist systems are where the community is isolated, close-knit, with little to no immigration or mobility of people due to climate, culture or resources.
Click to expand...

Let's face it ... some people are so damn lazy and stupid they deserve to be ruled by despots.


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
Click to expand...


When that happens, please put it on youtube.  You might be able to make some money off it.

That said, you are correct.  I don't know what it is to really be absolutely destitute.  
 Part of the reason is because I had parents that did well.    They did well, because they worked their butts off.   They saved and invested.  They lived a modest life style. 

In short, they conducted themselves wisely.

At the same time though.... I've been working non-stop since my freshman year in high school.   From then until today, I have had a steady 40 hour job every single year.  When I got laid off, I found another.   At different times, I've worked multiple jobs.

I was laid off in 07, 08, 09, and 2010.   I found new jobs each and every single time... all during the "great recession".

I've worked some terrible jobs.  And I've been so poor, that my clothes were falling apart.

But I still earned my bread, and lived off my own income.

So, no I don't know what it's like to dirty dirt poor.  You are right.  And most of the people, especially those on your side of the argument, never have either.

We live in the most wealthy country that has ever existed.  Our poor people today, live a higher standard of living than some of the middle class around the world.

So it's really hard for me to sympathize with those that claim to be poor, and don't have a job.


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> Let's face it ... some people are so damn lazy and stupid they deserve to be ruled by despots.



I don't think it is stupidity or laziness as much as it is just plain ignorance. They simply fail to comprehend the power of the enormous freedoms our system affords them. You can see this in Campbell's posts to me where he laughs off "be anything you please" because he doesn't believe that is possible. Yet it's not only possible, it is the greatest aspect of a free enterprise, free market capitalist system. Our system is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man... but Socialists like Campbell want to ignore that reality and actually turn the tables on it to use it against itself..._look at my chart which shows rich people get richer!_  Duh... they're supposed to! 

We have unfortunately become a nation full of moronic idiots who have been spoiled their whole life. Taught by liberals to be victims, to blame their shortfalls on others, to be jealous and envious of those who have more, to view success as evil and corrupt. Most importantly, to cede their enormous freedoms and opportunity to government for the promise of a better life they will never see.


----------



## Boss

Papageorgio said:


> Bitter and envious. Pretty sad that at 80 you are still a bitter old person. You realized the Kennedy kids did nothing and took their daddy's bootlegging money. They drank, partied and killed. Funny how you don't care about that.



You don't really believe Campbell is 80 do you? I'm sorry but I can't buy that. I know people who are 80 and they don't spend time at USMB arguing generic Socialist-Communist clap trap. They just don't. A rare few 80-year-olds even get on the Internet and when they do it's almost comical.

My experience as a psychologist tells me that Campbell is more than likely someone who is ashamed of his young age and thinks that he can pull off this masquerade.  The left-wing Millennials are extremely brash and confident to be as stupid as they are.

I surmise Campbell is under 30, perhaps under 20. He is well-armed with stories of "the olden days" but these can come from anywhere. He does this because he thinks that his being 80 will somehow lend greater influence to what he is saying. I know he will deny this but he knows it is true and the fact that he knows this should give him pause. If the ideas were so great you wouldn't need to promote them as "80-year-old-man-wisdom" they would stand on merit.


----------



## Campbell

hadit said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My brother-in-law is a classic case in point.  He didn't finish high school, but apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for a couple of years just to learn the trade.  Now he owns his own shop and is a huge success.  It can be done, but it's not easy.  It requires taking big risks and being 110% committed.  Maybe that's the problem.
Click to expand...


So he earns what...two or three mil a year?

Owns his own shop! We're talking about the upper 5%-10% of earners. You know...folks like professional sports stars and NASCAR drivers. All you need is to be born with quick reflexes and athletic ability   LOL!

Seriously....those who are financially able to attend ivy league schools are a small percentage. Community colleges and small state schools are the best goal for those who don't have the means.

I confess that I do find it interesting that folks here consider the military service personnel to be low achievers who flunked out of school. Most of them have a good high school education and just didn't have the financial means to attend college. In other words a built in crew to travel 10,000 miles and fight in the Republican oil wars.

When Richard Nixon did away with the military draft he knew exactly what he was doing. Fixing it so the upper crust wouldn't have to worry about it.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> So he earns what...two or three mil a year?
> 
> Owns his own shop! We're talking about the upper 5%-10% of earners. You know...folks like professional sports stars and NASCAR drivers. All you need is to be born with quick reflexes and athletic ability LOL!



Or you could also be like Armando de Quesada, a Cuban immigrant who came here in 1964 at age 40 with his wife and a dream and nothing more than his determination to succeed. By 1967, he saved up enough to open his first restaurant. Mando's Pizza and Italian Food soon became an icon in the region and he eventually had a chain of eateries, as well as numerous other business projects all around the South. Now, he probably wouldn't make the Top 10% today because there is so many more people in the Top 10% today...but I bet he would've been close back in the 80s. He passed away in 2004 and his family is still quite wealthy. 

Or could be... we're talking about Edward Guice, a younger man who worked for Armando and learned from his business acumen and realized his dream of opening his own pharmacy. You see, success breeds success. Being around inspiring people, inspires. That is what you are missing in your life, just in case you didn't know.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he earns what...two or three mil a year?
> 
> Owns his own shop! We're talking about the upper 5%-10% of earners. You know...folks like professional sports stars and NASCAR drivers. All you need is to be born with quick reflexes and athletic ability LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could also be like Armando de Quesada, a Cuban immigrant who came here in 1964 at age 40 with his wife and a dream and nothing more than his determination to succeed. By 1967, he saved up enough to open his first restaurant. Mando's Pizza and Italian Food soon became an icon in the region and he eventually had a chain of eateries, as well as numerous other business projects all around the South. Now, he probably wouldn't make the Top 10% today because there is so many more people in the Top 10% today...but I bet he would've been close back in the 80s. He passed away in 2004 and his family is still quite wealthy.
> 
> Or could be... we're talking about Edward Guice, a younger man who worked for Armando and learned from his business acumen and realized his dream of opening his own pharmacy. You see, success breeds success. Being around inspiring people, inspires. That is what you are missing in your life, just in case you didn't know.
Click to expand...


We could talk about the 6,500 who died in Bush's wars, the one in Iraq(4,500 dead, 35,000 seriously wounded) totally unnecessary. The Republican party has become the party of the rich and corporations and what amazes me is that any common people actually support that bunch of dolts.


----------



## Boss

Campbell said:


> We could talk about the 6,500 who died in Bush's wars, the one in Iraq(4,500 dead, 35,000 seriously wounded) totally unnecessary. The Republican party has become the party of the rich and corporations and what amazes me is that any common people actually support that bunch of dolts.



You want to talk about the fact they were all volunteers who made the choice to serve their country and go fight a war you pissed away any hopes of being worthwhile? Or the hundreds of thousands of socialist-supported thug terrorist scum they killed? 

And what is your deal with the Republican party? I'm not a Republican, I am a conservative and we were talking about free market capitalism versus socialism. I actually think Bush was more Socialist than Clinton. This isn't about political parties. You've obviously hitched your wagon to a party and you want to run on the 19th century failed Socialist platform... so be it! ...Let's see who wins this baby? I'm betting America is about fed up with you.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
Click to expand...

Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.
Click to expand...


I agree, largely......but acknowledging these facts does nothing to solve our ballooning debt.


----------



## Papageorgio

Campbell said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he earns what...two or three mil a year?
> 
> Owns his own shop! We're talking about the upper 5%-10% of earners. You know...folks like professional sports stars and NASCAR drivers. All you need is to be born with quick reflexes and athletic ability LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could also be like Armando de Quesada, a Cuban immigrant who came here in 1964 at age 40 with his wife and a dream and nothing more than his determination to succeed. By 1967, he saved up enough to open his first restaurant. Mando's Pizza and Italian Food soon became an icon in the region and he eventually had a chain of eateries, as well as numerous other business projects all around the South. Now, he probably wouldn't make the Top 10% today because there is so many more people in the Top 10% today...but I bet he would've been close back in the 80s. He passed away in 2004 and his family is still quite wealthy.
> 
> Or could be... we're talking about Edward Guice, a younger man who worked for Armando and learned from his business acumen and realized his dream of opening his own pharmacy. You see, success breeds success. Being around inspiring people, inspires. That is what you are missing in your life, just in case you didn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could talk about the 6,500 who died in Bush's wars, the one in Iraq(4,500 dead, 35,000 seriously wounded) totally unnecessary. The Republican party has become the party of the rich and corporations and what amazes me is that any common people actually support that bunch of dolts.
Click to expand...


And you think the Democrats are any different? Obama extended the healthcare requirement on businesses while not extending the burden on the middle class taxpayer. GE, Obama's corporate baby paid little if any taxes. Didn't see anyone cry over that. When Enron's scheme was exposed, some executive teams spent jail time. Obama's Justice Dept have failed to prosecute anyone after the collapse. The Democrat's "Sir" Hillary Clinton's n is in deep with the corporations and she is the front runner to replace Obama who is also loved by Wall St. 

I don't buy the Democrats are for anyone, other than the rich, they just disguise it better.


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they've got things going their way. Look at this and make note that the lowest half of earners haven't even broken even when adjusted for inflation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a moron.  You see the bottom 10% being 16% higher as a bad thing.  You see the middle being 25% higher as a bad thing.  You see the upper middle class doubling as a bad thing.  You see the rich being 300% higher as a bad thing.  You Know why you see these as bad things?  Because you're dumb ass piece of shit that can't even crack the bottom 1%.  And who do you blame for not being rich?  The people who are successful.  ROFL  What a dumb ass communist piece of shit you are.  You want to move from the bottom to the top?  GET  UP OFF YOUR ASS.
Click to expand...

Dude; that graph merely shows how the wealthiest can simply purchase better privileges and immunities than the less wealthy.


----------



## danielpalos

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices.  Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.
> 
> I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.
> 
> You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.
Click to expand...

Dude, Capitalism did that to itself in 1929; why do you believe FDR had to use so much socialism to bail us out.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, largely......but acknowledging these facts does nothing to solve our ballooning debt.
Click to expand...

That is correct, and that is why we WILL do nothing to resolve the debt issue until we simply can't finance it any longer and we default.  Even then, I predict that there will politicians who will promise even more new spending.  The dirty secret is that we already have more than enough revenue coming in to continue scheduled debt payments even if we refused to lift the debt ceiling any higher.  We just choose to spend it elsewhere.  Watch the election season.  Every candidate is going to try to out-do all the others in promising new spending.


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, largely......but acknowledging these facts does nothing to solve our ballooning debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct, and that is why we WILL do nothing to resolve the debt issue until we simply can't finance it any longer and we default.  Even then, I predict that there will politicians who will promise even more new spending.  The dirty secret is that we already have more than enough revenue coming in to continue scheduled debt payments even if we refused to lift the debt ceiling any higher.  We just choose to spend it elsewhere.  Watch the election season.  Every candidate is going to try to out-do all the others in promising new spending.
Click to expand...


they NEVER DO THAT...THEY ALL PROMISE TO CUT ...yet they never cut.....and they ALL promise to cut taxes too...and they DO get that done to placATE THEIR RICH DONORS............IT HAS TO BE THE OPPOSITE , raise taxes on the rich and pay down the debt.


----------



## Campbell

Boss said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could talk about the 6,500 who died in Bush's wars, the one in Iraq(4,500 dead, 35,000 seriously wounded) totally unnecessary. The Republican party has become the party of the rich and corporations and what amazes me is that any common people actually support that bunch of dolts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about the fact they were all volunteers who made the choice to serve their country and go fight a war you pissed away any hopes of being worthwhile? Or the hundreds of thousands of socialist-supported thug terrorist scum they killed?
> 
> And what is your deal with the Republican party? I'm not a Republican, I am a conservative and we were talking about free market capitalism versus socialism. I actually think Bush was more Socialist than Clinton. This isn't about political parties. You've obviously hitched your wagon to a party and you want to run on the 19th century failed Socialist platform... so be it! ...Let's see who wins this baby? I'm betting America is about fed up with you.
Click to expand...


As I've posted here repeatedly I was a Republican for thirty years. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even Reagan the first time. After I saw that Hollywood actor with a numbness above the shoulders slash tax rates to pre depression lows, increase his spending and borrow three trillion dollars from foreign banks I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. I've only voted Democrat 3 times in my life but I'll never vote for another Republican if I live to 100. I liked the Eisenhower era when the Republican party was still the party of the people. The only thing the modern Republican party seems to want to do is cut tax rates for the rich and declare war somewhere then send other people's kids to fight and die in it!!

Hey Numbnuts!!!! The rich send their kids to ivy league schools and the kids of poor people join the military. Can't you figure that out??

Take the Bush family....they all but owned Yale and they all attended there. Bush made C's and if he hadn't been at Yale any other school would have run the dumb son-of-a-bitch off.
His home state at University of Texas refused him admission to their law school based on academic consideration.


----------



## hadit

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, largely......but acknowledging these facts does nothing to solve our ballooning debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct, and that is why we WILL do nothing to resolve the debt issue until we simply can't finance it any longer and we default.  Even then, I predict that there will politicians who will promise even more new spending.  The dirty secret is that we already have more than enough revenue coming in to continue scheduled debt payments even if we refused to lift the debt ceiling any higher.  We just choose to spend it elsewhere.  Watch the election season.  Every candidate is going to try to out-do all the others in promising new spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they NEVER DO THAT...THEY ALL PROMISE TO CUT ...yet they never cut.....and they ALL promise to cut taxes too...and they DO get that done to placATE THEIR RICH DONORS............IT HAS TO BE THE OPPOSITE , raise taxes on the rich and pay down the debt.
Click to expand...

And if you include spending cuts, you'd have a lot less resistance.  As it is, people rightly ask, "Why should I have to give up more out of my paycheck if you're not going to do anything about the debt?".


----------



## dcraelin

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> 
> 
> Republican =/= conservative, that's one issue right there.  Then there are big government Republicans who increase spending, like George Bush did.  Now defense spending is dictated by the Constitution, so many see it as a necessary thing.  That is, after all, one of the federal government's mandated activities.  The amount of spending is debatable, since we already spend a LOT on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, largely......but acknowledging these facts does nothing to solve our ballooning debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct, and that is why we WILL do nothing to resolve the debt issue until we simply can't finance it any longer and we default.  Even then, I predict that there will politicians who will promise even more new spending.  The dirty secret is that we already have more than enough revenue coming in to continue scheduled debt payments even if we refused to lift the debt ceiling any higher.  We just choose to spend it elsewhere.  Watch the election season.  Every candidate is going to try to out-do all the others in promising new spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they NEVER DO THAT...THEY ALL PROMISE TO CUT ...yet they never cut.....and they ALL promise to cut taxes too...and they DO get that done to placATE THEIR RICH DONORS............IT HAS TO BE THE OPPOSITE , raise taxes on the rich and pay down the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you include spending cuts, you'd have a lot less resistance.  As it is, people rightly ask, "Why should I have to give up more out of my paycheck if you're not going to do anything about the debt?".
Click to expand...


well spending cuts, is not necessarily needed for the government to pally tax increases to debt.....but I get your point...it would help


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
Click to expand...



LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!








The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
Click to expand...



AND? The top 1% has TRIPLED their share of the pie since 1980, WHILE decreasing the tax "burden" on that piece of the pie since 1980!!


*The one tax graph you really need to know*

*So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens: *
 







SEE WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES WERE ON THE JOB CREATORS' PRE REAGANOMICS?


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all they can do though.   Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people.  Cutting and pasting, is all they can do.   Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.
Click to expand...



Says the Klown arguing the US can't make people pay higher taxes, lol


----------



## bedowin62

weird; Dems didnt have the votes to overcome the republican filibuster of that Buffett rule?


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
Click to expand...



Yep Bubba, *The ANTI Tax Foundation  showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today*, an AVERAGE of *less than $15,000 PER FAMILY,* a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol



Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all they can do though.   Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people.  Cutting and pasting, is all they can do.   Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Klown arguing the US can't make people pay higher taxes, lol
Click to expand...

 
that's what they paid you dullard. it doesnt give a whole picture. if you losers wanted to get rid of all the loopholes you could have; we both know why Dems never even tried


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep Bubba, *The ANTI Tax Foundation  showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today*, an AVERAGE of *less than $15,000 PER FAMILY,* a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol
Click to expand...

 

the bottom half pays next to zero in federal income tax  you idiot. if their total taxes are high it's because they get taxed to death mostly in Blue states at the state and local level


----------



## bedowin62

why do you Progressive idiots keep pretending it is still the 1950s and 1960s?


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D2stupid, is a known troll.  He rarely, if ever, reads his own links.  He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.
Click to expand...


Sorry Bubba, I'm NOT a CONservative, I READ ANYTHING I LINK, I link to the ANTI Tax Foundation to show the  drop in the bottom half of US from the piece of the pie, NOT to cherry pick the piece of the pie that the ANTI TAX Foundation CHOOSES to highlight on the "unfair" burden the top 1% has, as their incomes EXPLODED and their EFFECTIVE tax burden dropped AND the ACTUAL federal tax burden on that piece of the pie the top 1% TAKES, has dropped, by about 40%


----------



## bedowin62

Dad2three said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D2stupid, is a known troll.  He rarely, if ever, reads his own links.  He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, I'm NOT a CONservative, I READ ANYTHING I LINK, I link to the ANTI Tax Foundation to show the  drop in the bottom half of US from the piece of the pie, NOT to cherry pick the piece of the pie that the ANTI TAX Foundation CHOOSES to highlight on the "unfair" burden the top 1% has, as their incomes EXPLODED and their EFFECTIVE tax burden dropped AND the ACTUAL federal tax burden on that piece of the pie the top 1% TAKES, has dropped, by about 40%
Click to expand...

 
grab your pitchfork and torch leftard


----------



## Mr Natural

We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.

And once they're gone, they are gone forever.

And then what will we ever do?


----------



## Andylusion

Mr Clean said:


> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?



Well if we look around at other countries that lost their rich and wealthy, the movers and shakers that produce the goods and jobs in the economy......   we'll likely fall into poverty and decline.   If that continues, we'll end up in cannibalism like the Soviets did.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
Click to expand...



MORE RIGHT WING BULLSHIT

*The purpose of the estate tax is to keep all other taxes as low a possible.*  It’s so we can have roads, and courts, and a patent office, and science, and food safety, and mine inspectors, and air traffic controllers, and earned benefits in retirement, and national defense, and so we don’t have to tax milk.


*"If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule..."


WEALTHY TAX BURDEN DUMMY:







*"So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue. Why you are shocked by this, I don't know."*


*SHOW ME ANY CREDIBLE STUDY THAT SAYS THE US WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE FROM 1960-1981 BUBBA? ANY?*


*Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman*


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


*Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."*


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

*Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."







*January 15, 2004

TOTAL REVENUES FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DROP TO LOWEST SHARE OF ECONOMY SINCE 1968

Government Spending at Lower Share of GDP Than in All Years from 1980-1996


In recent years, the overall fiscal position of the government — reflecting federal, state, and local governments combined — has shifted from one of surpluses to one of substantial deficits. Just-released government data show the principal reason for this shift is that revenue collections have shrunk markedly. Combined federal, state, and local revenues fell in fiscal year 2003 to their lowest level, measured as a share of the economy, since 1968.

| Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
*


----------



## Dad2three

GWV5903 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know his daughter?
> 
> And you know how she feels?
> 
> Her father earned it and he earned the right to do with as he pleased...
Click to expand...


Yeah, BECAUSE the US was Founded on inherited wealth NOT that the Founders wanted an MERIT BASED SOCIETY


Hint 6 of the top 10 richest US citizens are there THANKS TO INHERITING DADDY'S MONEY! *Walton/Koch's...


HINT GOV'T POLICY CAN SAY WHERE THE MONEY GOES RIGHT?


----------



## Dad2three

Mr Clean said:


> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?




PLEASE PULL A GALT MORONS! US ECONOMY BY FAR THE LARGEST AND STRONGEST ECONOMY, THE BILLIONAIRE WANT TO LEAVE? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we look around at other countries that lost their rich and wealthy, the movers and shakers that produce the goods and jobs in the economy......   we'll likely fall into poverty and decline.   If that continues, we'll end up in cannibalism like the Soviets did.
Click to expand...


Which countries is that Bubba?

You mean communism failed that THEORY like the Randian fetish you Klowns have,m that's NEVER worked ANYWHERE?


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?


----------



## Dad2three

easyt65 said:


> Liberals don't really want Americans to 'pay their fair share'.  While BEING filthy rich themselves (Democratic Party and Liberal Elitist leaders), they either seek to pay as little as they can or simply don't pay their taxes, while advocating taking as much in taxes from everyone else that they can to fund their 'freebie' give-aways, donor payoffs, and *special projects designed to keep them in power.office.
> 
> 46% of Americans do not pay taxes in this country, partly due to the Liberal program of 'Economic Slavery', a program designed to keep most Americans UN-successful and dependent on govt hand-outs in exchange for votes to keep the programs fully funded and the 'freebies' coming. The downside to this is that as the number of people dependent on the govt grows the fewer there are who you can tax...and to keep paying for all this as the number of recipients grows you have to keep taxing / taking more and more from the fewer and fewer there are left to pay for it all.   That's why the old factual saying remains true: 'Socialism is GREAT until the Leaders/Self-Appointed Czars run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY...and why every nation that has gone down this road and has embraced Socialism has FAILED...as in 'has COLLAPESD'!
> 
> 'Fair Tax'. Get rid of the corrupt, biased IRS. Everyone has to pay a percentage. No more huge companies paying no taxes. No more allowing companies to take their businesses overseas to take advantage of slave labor then bringing the goods back into the US as if they were made here - put such a high import tariff on the goods coming back in that it will be cheaper to manufacture things back here in the states.




46% DON'T PAY TAXES IN THE US?

*The one tax graph you really need to know*

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and *broken into federal and state and local burdens:*


 






OH YOU MEANT THAT PIECE OF THE PIE THAT'S 26% OF ALL TAXATION, INCOME TAXES AT THE FED LEVEL! LOL

The one tax graph you really need to know


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
Click to expand...



FEET TO THE FIRE? I THAT'S why Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first budget surplus?

Hint it was BECAUSE of this that the US budget was balanced:

*FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’*

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.



Oh, and Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. On May 27, 1993, Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL) said “[Americans] will remember who set loose this dreadful virus into the economic bloodstream of our nation.”* If only we could have a “dreadful virus” of that sort today. More quotes below the jump.:*

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
Click to expand...



Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
Click to expand...




MORE right wing crap

CARTER HAD ALMOST 20% OF GDP, Ronnie gutted it to 17.5% then Clinton got US to 20% of GDP, AND had 4 straight surpluses, Dubya/GOP gutted US to less than 15% of GDP, AS THEY RAMPED UP MEDICARE EXPANSION (WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING) AND GAVE US 2 UNFUNDED WARS. Obama is CLOSE to getting US back to 18% off GDP, BUT THAT INCLUDES OBAMACARES. RECORD REVENUES? lol

WHAT THE GOP DOES:

"*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




....Before his election as President, then-candidate *Ronald Reagan* foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. *Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."*

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pays a smaller percentage not less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In August 2011, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the _New York Times_ in which he made the assertion that his* 2010 “federal tax rate” of 17.4 percent was 18.6 percentage points less than the 36.0 percent average rate paid by the 20 other workers in his office.*
> 
> 
> Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule,(*MIN 30% ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES!*)  has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress.
> 
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
> 
> Let me guess? Buffet is "wrong" because he uses the payroll taxes the office pays? LIKE THE CBO, TREASURY, etc do too when figuring EFFECTIVE tax rates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing that stops Buffet from becoming a man who puts his money where his mouth is.  The treasury will accept extra money from him.  Naturally, he's all hat and no cattle.
Click to expand...



Sure, the US exists on voluntary taxation system *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three

2aguy said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….you forgot where Reagan made a debt to cut spending and the democrats lied and just kept spending….little detail…big difference.
Click to expand...



THE BIG LIE MAKES AN APPEARANCE. Shocking

COULD RONNIE VETO BILLS?




*The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts*


*he Facts*

* Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats,* the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.

Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagan’s three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways...


*The Pinocchio Test*
 It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

 Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

 If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.









The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:
> 
> .....................Total U S Debt....................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out quite a bit.  You know, the part where the debt will have doubled again by the time the latest occupant of the White House leaves, after accumulating more debt than all the other presidents combined.  Sorry, but you don't get to act like the last 7 years didn't happen.
Click to expand...



Yes, Dubya/GOP putting TWO WARS on the credit card, GROWING GOV'T SPENDING AS THEY GUT REVENUES and giving US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, AS Dubya cheered on the Bankster bubble that put US near the second GOP great depression, will tend to create debt pretty fast when the bills come due!


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.
Click to expand...



Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not paying the debt down at all.  In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year.  That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus.  as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was forced to do so.  Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
Click to expand...


"With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity."

TRUE, WE CALL THEM CONservatives/GOP 

*Taxpayer Protection Pledge*

*Prior to the November 2012 election, 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"*, in which the pledger promises to* "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."*

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia











HELL WE CAN'T PAY OFF DEBT, REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE OR HELP THE BOTTOM 90% OF US, lol


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
Click to expand...


"conservative fiscal policy" ? You mean gut taxes for the rich, blow up Gov't spending THEN refuse to pay for it, like Reagan/Dubya/GOP for 30+ years?


----------



## Dad2three

dcraelin said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction.  The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending.  We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see.  Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
Click to expand...



How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
Click to expand...



Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from *50%  (he had for the first 6 years*, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) *to 28% in 1987*


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...
> 
> Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...
> 
> The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...
> 
> The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
Click to expand...

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???
> 
> HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from *50%  (he had for the first 6 years*, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) *to 28% in 1987*
Click to expand...

Here's a hint for the terminally obstinate, and something that your own chart shows.  JFK cut the top rate first, from 91% to 70%.  Guess what happened to the economy when he did that?


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......
> 
> so the rich should pay more in taxes
> 
> also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
Click to expand...


Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???
> 
> HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from *50%  (he had for the first 6 years*, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) *to 28% in 1987*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a hint for the terminally obstinate, and something that your own chart shows.  JFK cut the top rate first, from 91% to 70%.  Guess what happened to the economy when he did that?
Click to expand...



You mean LBJ 's DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS BUBBA?


HINT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ON THOSE "JOB CREATORS" DIDN'T FALL BUBS, LOL


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?
Click to expand...

They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico.  Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
> 2.  There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
> 3.  Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.
> 
> Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
Click to expand...

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?
> 
> What.... five people?  Maybe?
> 
> Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy?  The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig?   You think that was it?
> 
> There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today.   The difference is, you didn't know about it.  You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today.  Information was not public.   Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.
> 
> Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.
> 
> Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts.  You can't "make" people pay a tax.  You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....
> 
> It's not a fixed game.   Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire.  How did he do that, if the game was fixed?
> 
> There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years.  How is that possible if the game is rigged?
> 
> The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News
> 
> This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company.   I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged.  Idiot.
> 
> You are just wrong.   As you people always are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico.  Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.
Click to expand...



Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???
> 
> HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from *50%  (he had for the first 6 years*, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) *to 28% in 1987*
Click to expand...

And it worked, big time.


----------



## Boss

hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.
> 
> That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico.  Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol
Click to expand...

Where does a smart person invest his money, in a hostile environment where every penny is jealously watched by vultures sick with greed and envy, or in a friendly environment where his return is greater and less is confiscated?  And no, you cut spending at the same time.  That's what you have to do with this crop of Washington idiots.


----------



## hadit

Boss said:


> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.


That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE BS
> 
> JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE  (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY
> 
> NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
Click to expand...




Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.



Says the big liar who doesn't understand as a US citizen any income made ANYWHERE in the world is subject to US taxation?? lol


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't.   Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now.  That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson.   You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.
> 
> Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met.  I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are?   No?  I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you?   Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?
> 
> Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.  That is what crappy scum suckers do.
> 
> Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect.    While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time....  we do have 'income ranges'.   The range of income is from several different brackets.   Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range.   Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate.   A few hundred at best.
> 
> But then you have to take into account, when.    Why?    Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.
> 
> In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.
> 
> Do understand what happened?   The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden.    They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation.     Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for?  You wouldn't.  I wouldn't.   No one would.
> 
> So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue.   Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.
> 
> And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.
> 
> View attachment 50127
> 
> Look back at the 1950s.   The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got.   They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.
> 
> Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.
> 
> If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs,  you people are nutz.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible.  They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico.  Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does a smart person invest his money, in a hostile environment where every penny is jealously watched by vultures sick with greed and envy, or in a friendly environment where his return is greater and less is confiscated?  And no, you cut spending at the same time.  That's what you have to do with this crop of Washington idiots.
Click to expand...



Weird, Obama's "war" on job creators is going horribly, record Corp profits, lowest tax "burden" in 40 years and first time EVER labor less than half their costs! 


Hostile? lol


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???
> 
> HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from *50%  (he had for the first 6 years*, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) *to 28% in 1987*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it worked, big time.
Click to expand...



You mean by shifting the tax burden on workers, blowing up Gov't spending WHILE having slower growth than under Clinton or 1945-1980 average???

lol


----------



## Dad2three

*STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP*

These Charts Show There's Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


*Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)*

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)


----------



## Dad2three

* Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *



Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?

There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*



Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it ... some people are so damn lazy and stupid they deserve to be ruled by despots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is stupidity or laziness as much as it is just plain ignorance. They simply fail to comprehend the power of the enormous freedoms our system affords them. You can see this in Campbell's posts to me where he laughs off "be anything you please" because he doesn't believe that is possible. Yet it's not only possible, it is the greatest aspect of a free enterprise, free market capitalist system. Our system is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man... but Socialists like Campbell want to ignore that reality and actually turn the tables on it to use it against itself..._look at my chart which shows rich people get richer!_  Duh... they're supposed to!
> 
> We have unfortunately become a nation full of moronic idiots who have been spoiled their whole life. Taught by liberals to be victims, to blame their shortfalls on others, to be jealous and envious of those who have more, to view success as evil and corrupt. Most importantly, to cede their enormous freedoms and opportunity to government for the promise of a better life they will never see.
Click to expand...

Nobody could be that moronic... nah... I think they are just playing the role of the town idiot cause they are lazy good for nothing pieces of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble reading the English language??
> 
> CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why no I don't. Do you?  You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart?  FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all they can do though.   Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people.  Cutting and pasting, is all they can do.   Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Klown arguing the US can't make people pay higher taxes, lol
Click to expand...


Marginal tax rates don't show how much total tax the rich actually pay, moron.  They pay a larger percentage of the tax burden than they did in the 1950s, the golden age you are always pining for.  Your also chart ignores all the deductions the rich enjoyed before Reagan lowered marginal rates.  Furthermore, those high marginal rates were choking off growth during the 70s.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth



_"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_

_Now that's funny!_


----------



## Dad2three

*The Loss of Shared Prosperity*


Census family income data show that from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, incomes across the income distribution grew at nearly the same pace


As Figure 2 shows, from 1979 to 2007, just before the financial crisis and Great Recession, *average income after taxes for the top 1 percent of the distribution quadrupled*.  The increases in the middle 60 percent and bottom 20 percent of the distribution were much smaller.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
Click to expand...

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
Click to expand...



Sure Bubs, forget US history and empirical evidence, it just doesn't fit into your bumper sticker mentality. Shocking


----------



## bripat9643

Mr Clean said:


> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?



You'll go back to your tin shack and eat your gruel by torch light.


----------



## Dad2three

While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. *Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth*. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton.


Economist's View: Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
Click to expand...


"The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll go back to your tin shack and eat your gruel by torch light.
Click to expand...

LOL. Because countries with high tax rates on the wealthy are OBVIOUSLY experiencing this.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
Click to expand...

The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE PULL A GALT MORONS! US ECONOMY BY FAR THE LARGEST AND STRONGEST ECONOMY, THE BILLIONAIRE WANT TO LEAVE? lol
Click to expand...


That would end a few years after turds like you started running things.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
Click to expand...



Equally? Ah the right wings flaw, LESS unequal Bubba, NOT equality dumbass!!!


----------



## Boss

hadit said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
Click to expand...


That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE PULL A GALT MORONS! US ECONOMY BY FAR THE LARGEST AND STRONGEST ECONOMY, THE BILLIONAIRE WANT TO LEAVE? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would end a few years after turds like you started running things.
Click to expand...


Yes, US Turds like Teddy, FDR, LBJ, etc...


----------



## David_42

Boss said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
Click to expand...

"They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
"Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..


----------



## Dad2three

Boss said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
Click to expand...



Says the Klown arguing US taxes income twice IF he made money from Germany, his "tax plan" would give a ten year amnesty to "create jobs" despite the FACT that income from Germany CAN come back to the US tax free today as an individual BECAUSE Germany has a higher tax burden and the US has tax treaties, lol


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
Click to expand...


The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.

Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
Click to expand...


sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
Click to expand...


Pure socialism has never existed either.  Yet, you call yourself a socialist.  The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows.  The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure socialism has never existed either.  Yet, you call yourself a socialist.  The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows.  The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
Click to expand...



BZZZ. Wrong

The US WAS a HEAVY protectionist society from the Founding until the early 1970's AND the times we WERE closest to the "hands off" approach, Harding/Coolidge, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime, the BUBBLES POPPED!


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
> 
> And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
> 
> And then what will we ever do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll go back to your tin shack and eat your gruel by torch light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Because countries with high tax rates on the wealthy are OBVIOUSLY experiencing this.
Click to expand...


France started heading in that direction, so it pulled back.  Sweden and Britain also repealed their 90-100% marginal tax rates.  Most of the European welfare states have retreated significantly from the high marginal rates they imposed in the 50s and 60s.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


How does telling the truth make you "witless?"


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure socialism has never existed either.  Yet, you call yourself a socialist.  The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows.  The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZ. Wrong
> 
> The US WAS a HEAVY protectionist society from the Founding until the early 1970's AND the times we WERE closest to the "hands off" approach, Harding/Coolidge, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime, the BUBBLES POPPED!
Click to expand...


We were "hands off" all during the 19th century, so your claim is absolute bullshit.  Our tariff rates varied over the years.  The last time we raised them sharply was at the beginning of the Great Depression.  I suppose that was just a coincidence, eh?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
Click to expand...




Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive


----------



## bripat9643

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
Click to expand...


Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
Click to expand...


The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure socialism has never existed either.  Yet, you call yourself a socialist.  The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows.  The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZ. Wrong
> 
> The US WAS a HEAVY protectionist society from the Founding until the early 1970's AND the times we WERE closest to the "hands off" approach, Harding/Coolidge, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime, the BUBBLES POPPED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were "hands off" all during the 19th century, so your claim is absolute bullshit.  Our tariff rates varied over the years.  The last time we raised them sharply was at the beginning of the Great Depression.  I suppose that was just a coincidence, eh?
Click to expand...



Raised tariffs? Oh right AFTER Harding/Coolidge's bubble popped! YOU KNOW, LIKE HOW DUBYA'S BUBBLE POPPED ALSO???


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

*When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world.  * Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, *it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. *It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation



It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

*Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders*



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe.* The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.*


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
Click to expand...

Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
Click to expand...


That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains.  How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................Total U S Debt............................
> 
> 09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*
> 
> 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*
> 
> 09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
> 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
> 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
> 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
> 
> 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
> 
> 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*
> 
> 09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*
> 
> 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*
> 
> 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
> 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
> 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
> 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)*
> 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
> 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
> 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
> 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
> 
> 09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*
> 
> 09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
Click to expand...



LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains.  How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why we need to raise taxes on capital gains, given the low tax rate on the income of the rich.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
Click to expand...


Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## David_42

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains.  How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, which is why we need to raise taxes on capital gains, given the low tax rate on the income of the rich.
Click to expand...

I should mention I do support lowering the corporate tax rate.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
Click to expand...


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.
Click to expand...


In other words, they don't always bring massive economic growth.  So we've had 11 wars since WW II ended?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains.  How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.
Click to expand...



Oh weird, the right wing Klown is using a FALSE talking point. WEIRD

The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The tax plan would apply a* minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.*


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Buffett Rule Targets Capital Gains*


Buffett Rule Targets Capital Gains | Center for Effective Government





Summary: 

A new report from the White House highlights the need for Congress to take action and pass the Buffett Rule. Here are some of the highlights. 


White House Report – The Buffett Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, they don't always bring massive economic growth.  So we've had 11 wars since WW II ended?
Click to expand...

Of course they don't, I should have been more specific, but we all make mistakes, part of life. What was the size of these wars? What was the mobilization? World war 2 was something else entirely, another animal.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
Click to expand...

Face it.. democrats can't even feed themselves.  They are useless morons.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just make them pay 90%...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
Click to expand...


Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
_President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
Click to expand...



YOUR LINK BUBS:


*Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*




*LOL*

*AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Click to expand...


The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

Allow me to quote your definition:

_*Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount._​Note:  The *two equal groups* would be the top half and the bottom half.

What a bonehead.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> How.....?
> 
> Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year.   You can raise the top tax rate to 100%.  He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year.   You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
> 
> You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes.  Every country that has tried that, has failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:
> 
> Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> _President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
> 
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​
Click to expand...


Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side! 


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Buffett Rule* is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would *apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.* According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
> 
> WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
> 
> 
> Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:
> 
> Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> _President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
> 
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!
> 
> 
> 91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!
Click to expand...


You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.

Which is it?  Can you please make-up your mind?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.
Click to expand...




OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

*AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS




*


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:
> 
> Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> _President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
> 
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!
> 
> 
> 91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.
> 
> Which is it?  Can you please make-up your mind?
Click to expand...


Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking


----------



## Campbell

Dad2three said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep Bubba, *The ANTI Tax Foundation  showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today*, an AVERAGE of *less than $15,000 PER FAMILY,* a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol
> 
> Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol
Click to expand...


Guess what???

Right now as we speak Grover Norquist has a plan to never increase any tax rate and what he and several other key Republicans are really shooting for is a flat tax. Think about it....the rich will get a 20%-25% cut in taxes while average people draw an increase in their federal taxes. If you count payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, federal excise tax, gasoline tax, auto registration, driver's license, fishing license, boat registration, fees on every monthly bill like electricity and water an ordinary American worker is already taxed at a higher percentage rate than the rich.
When a big wig is drawing a million a year $0.40 a gallon tax on gasoline don't amount to shit. To the poor bastard working for minimum wage and having to drive 20 miles both ways to his work site That quickly adds up. But who's counting?  Definitely not the rich folks.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000.  If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death.  Is that what you're implying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:
> 
> Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:
> 
> 68,040,177 Families (68 million families0
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)
> $1,003,944 (1 Trillion )
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


That's the average income *OF* the bottom 50% of *INDIVIDUALS *filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans.  The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.

If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?


----------



## Dad2three

*The average tax rate paid by the very highest-income Americans has fallen to nearly the lowest rate in over 50 years. *The wealthiest 1-in-1,000 taxpayers pay barely a quarter of their income in Federal income and payroll taxes today—*half of what they would have contributed in 1960*. And, the top 400 richest Americans—all making over $110 million—paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008.


*Average tax rates for the highest income Americans have plummeted even as their incomes have skyrocketed. *Since 1979 the average after-tax income of the very wealthiest Americans – the top 1 percent – has risen _nearly four-fold. _
*Many high-income Americans are paying less in taxes than middle class Americans in taxes. Nearly one-quarter of all millionaires (about 55,000 taxpayers) face a tax rate that is lower than more than millions of middle-income taxpayers. * This is fundamentally unfair.

White House Report – The Buffett Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%.  That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:
> 
> Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> _President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
> 
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!
> 
> 
> 91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.
> 
> Which is it?  Can you please make-up your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking
Click to expand...


In other words, when a Republican cuts marginal rates, it's bad for the economy.  When a Democrat cuts them, it's good for the economy.

Got it.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
> 
> Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
> 
> 
> Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
> 
> Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:
> 
> Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:
> 
> 68,040,177 Families (68 million families0
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)
> $1,003,944 (1 Trillion )
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the average income *OF* the bottom 50% of *INDIVIDUALS *filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans.  The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.
> 
> If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?
Click to expand...




Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?


Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:


your filing status,
your age,
your income,
your dependency status, and
whether you meet a few other special requirements.




*IF your filing status is. . .* *AND at the end of 2014 
you were*. . .* *THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .*
*Single under 65 $10,150 *
65 or older $11,700
Head of household under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600
Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
Married filing separately any age $3,950
Qualifying widow(er)  
with dependent child under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550 


TEENS HUH BUBS?

Publication 554 (2014),  Tax Guide for Seniors



LOL


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*
> 
> Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your full of shit, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:
> 
> Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:
> 
> 68,040,177 Families (68 million families0
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)
> $1,003,944 (1 Trillion )
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the average income *OF* the bottom 50% of *INDIVIDUALS *filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans.  The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.
> 
> If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?
> 
> 
> Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:
> 
> 
> your filing status,
> your age,
> your income,
> your dependency status, and
> whether you meet a few other special requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *IF your filing status is. . .* *AND at the end of 2014
> you were*. . .* *THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .*
> *Single under 65 $10,150 *
> 65 or older $11,700
> Head of household under 65 $13,050
> 65 or older $14,600
> Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
> 65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
> 65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
> Married filing separately any age $3,950
> Qualifying widow(er)
> with dependent child under 65 $16,350
> 65 or older $17,550
> 
> 
> TEENS HUH BUBS?
> 
> Publication 554 (2014),  Tax Guide for Seniors
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


The bottom line is that you fucked up royally and got all your facts wrong.  You proved you don't even know what the word "mean" means.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed.  Johnson managed to get it passed:
> 
> Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> _President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
> 
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!
> 
> 
> 91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.
> 
> Which is it?  Can you please make-up your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, when a Republican cuts marginal rates, it's bad for the economy.  When a Democrat cuts them, it's good for the economy.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...



Good you agree, you LIED about LBJ cutting it from 90% (*NOT 95%*) to 70% FOR A demand side tax cut that spurs an economy


BUT WHEN THE GOP SELLS US ON A "TRICKLE DOWN" BS TAX CUT, IT FAILS,* UNLESS THE US IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE RIGHT BUBBA????? *


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR LINK BUBS:
> 
> 
> *Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups,* half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. *Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> *AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS*
> 
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "bottom half" would be those making less than the *median income*, not the average income, moron.  I chose median specifically for that reason.  You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:
> 
> Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:
> 
> 68,040,177 Families (68 million families0
> 
> *AGI ($ millions)
> $1,003,944 (1 Trillion )
> 
> Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
> 
> 
> 
> AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the average income *OF* the bottom 50% of *INDIVIDUALS *filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans.  The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.
> 
> If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?
> 
> 
> Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:
> 
> 
> your filing status,
> your age,
> your income,
> your dependency status, and
> whether you meet a few other special requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *IF your filing status is. . .* *AND at the end of 2014
> you were*. . .* *THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .*
> *Single under 65 $10,150 *
> 65 or older $11,700
> Head of household under 65 $13,050
> 65 or older $14,600
> Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
> 65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
> 65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
> Married filing separately any age $3,950
> Qualifying widow(er)
> with dependent child under 65 $16,350
> 65 or older $17,550
> 
> 
> TEENS HUH BUBS?
> 
> Publication 554 (2014),  Tax Guide for Seniors
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that you fucked up royally and got all your facts wrong.  You proved you don't even know what the word "mean" means.
Click to expand...


Your dodge on the bottom HALF of US losing nearly $5,000 per family noted Bubba!


----------



## Campbell

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep Bubba, *The ANTI Tax Foundation  showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today*, an AVERAGE of *less than $15,000 PER FAMILY,* a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the bottom half pays next to zero in federal income tax  you idiot. if their total taxes are high it's because they get taxed to death mostly in Blue states at the state and local level
Click to expand...

 My point exactly! It's no wonder that the rich have made out like bandits ever since Ronald Reagan slashed their rates. As a percentage poor folks are already taxed at a higher rate. You do know about calculating percentages don't you?

Something has been working for the rich ever since Reagan slashed their rates. The sad thing is that he never cut spending a goddam dime and borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks to cover the shortfall:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75*(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)*


09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49*(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)*


09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32


09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62*(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16


09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06*(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)*


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86*(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)*


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43*(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)*


09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 *( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)*

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00


09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00*(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)*


09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


----------



## kyzr

A 1% national sales tax would raise about $140b a year, then you put a transaction tax on Wall Street and close tax loopholes and we can pay for our entitlements.  The tax whiners need to stop whining and tell Norquist to focus on spending instead of borrowing and borrowing.


----------



## danielpalos

I make a motion we simply end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you won't get that much.  They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
Click to expand...

Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.


----------



## bripat9643

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
Click to expand...


Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.


----------



## danielpalos

not any more; even over-the-counter stocks are good for fun and practice, now.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.
Click to expand...



Microsoft junk bonds? lol

Source?

But yes Ronnie gave US *Drexel Burnham*


----------



## Dad2three

hadit said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
Click to expand...



Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft junk bonds? lol
> 
> Source?
> 
> But yes Ronnie gave US *Drexel Burnham*
Click to expand...


Drexel Burnham funded hundreds of high tech startups.  You should be thankful it existed.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*
Click to expand...


ROFL!  A Republican Congress is what you should be thankful for.  That's the only thing that forced Clinton to be "responsible."


----------



## Andylusion

Campbell said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
> 
> All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
> 
> In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
> 
> *The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).*
> 
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep Bubba, *The ANTI Tax Foundation  showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today*, an AVERAGE of *less than $15,000 PER FAMILY,* a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol
> 
> Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what???
> 
> Right now as we speak Grover Norquist has a plan to never increase any tax rate and what he and several other key Republicans are really shooting for is a flat tax. Think about it....the rich will get a 20%-25% cut in taxes while average people draw an increase in their federal taxes. If you count payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, federal excise tax, gasoline tax, auto registration, driver's license, fishing license, boat registration, fees on every monthly bill like electricity and water an ordinary American worker is already taxed at a higher percentage rate than the rich.
> When a big wig is drawing a million a year $0.40 a gallon tax on gasoline don't amount to shit. To the poor bastard working for minimum wage and having to drive 20 miles both ways to his work site That quickly adds up. But who's counting?  Definitely not the rich folks.
Click to expand...


The rich don't have payroll tax? Sales Tax?  Property tax? Excise tax? No rich person pays gasoline tax? Auto Registration?  Driver's License?   Fishing license? Boat registration?  Fees on every monthly bill like Electricity and Water?

See, it's posts like this, that show me you are operating on greed and envy, rather than facts.

When you operate on emotion and hate, and greed, and envy, then the normal response is 'the rich are getting tax cuts, while the poor have to pay more!'.

But that isn't reality at all.

You don't seem to understand that the super rich right now, many of them pay zero income tax at all.

Mark Zuckerberg, multi-billionaire....   total income tax bill.... $0.   He pays zero income taxes.   His yearly salary is $1.   That's how much he is paid by Facebook as CEO.

Many of the super wealthy get paid relatively little.

Warren Buffet has a salary of just $100,000 a year. 

Money is extremely fluid.   There are infinite ways a rich person can move their money and assets around to avoid taxes.    There are some super wealthy people who have more assets in other countries, than in the US.... to avoid taxes.

You can't imprison wealth.  You can't stop it from moving around.  You can't prevent it from leaving.

The whole reason Ronald Reagan opposed high taxes was because of his own experience.   In the 1970s, the top marginal rate was 70%, and when Reagan earned enough to hit that top rate, he would just go to his ranch, and ride horses.   Why earn another $10,000, to end up with $3,000?

Similarly, why would CEOs invest in creating new jobs and new products, if they are going to lose most of whatever they earn in taxes?

What the Republicans that are pushing a flat tax understand, is that people react to the incentives they are given.   When you jack up taxes on the rich, they move to hide their money, which is easy to do, and impossible to stop.   When France tried to put in place a wealth tax, the wealthy left the country.

With a flat tax, more wealthy would be willing to take their compensation in cash, and just pay the tax.   Mark Zuckerberg would be more likely to take a cash salary, and pay the taxes on it.

See, under your plan, Zuckerberg pays zero tax.
Under our flat tax plan, Zuckerberg may pay a million to collect $9 Million in cash. (or whatever flat tax it happens to be).

And who knows.... perhaps with Zuckerberg having $9 million in cash, rather than stock options, maybe he might invest in a new venture that hires hundreds more people, and provides a new product or service that makes our lives better.

Under your system, that never happens.


----------



## Andylusion

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.

Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme.  It will only increase the debt.  You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth.  Same with the crew now in Washington.  With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
Click to expand...


*First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

*Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*

There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

*Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

*Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.


----------



## hadit

Dad2three said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away.  That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to.  People adjust and move things around.  I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's.  All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work.  And the wealthy didn't care at all.  Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*
Click to expand...

Like I said, it would have been even better without Bubba's wealth grab.


----------



## hadit

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?
> 
> 7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)
> 
> OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP
> 
> Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
> 
> 
> PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab.  The economy would have been even better without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the boom Reagan made possible.  Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  A Republican Congress is what you should be thankful for.  That's the only thing that forced Clinton to be "responsible."
Click to expand...

Yup.  Without them his vaunted "triangulation" would never had occurred and he would have been in full on democrat spend mode.


----------



## hadit

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.
> 
> Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.
> 
> Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.
> 
> So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.
> 
> *Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*
> 
> There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.
> 
> Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.
> 
> Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.
> 
> B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.
> 
> Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.
> 
> *Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.
> 
> Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.
> 
> Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.
> 
> Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.
> 
> You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.
> 
> *Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*
> 
> People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.
> 
> In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?
> 
> Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.
> 
> On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.
> 
> The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?
> 
> But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.
Click to expand...

And then they whine about companies not paying taxes.


----------



## David_42

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.
> 
> Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.
> 
> Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.
> 
> So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.
> 
> *Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*
> 
> There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.
> 
> Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.
> 
> Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.
> 
> B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.
> 
> Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.
> 
> *Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.
> 
> Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.
> 
> Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.
> 
> Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.
> 
> You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.
> 
> *Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*
> 
> People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.
> 
> In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?
> 
> Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.
> 
> On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.
> 
> The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?
> 
> But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.
Click to expand...

I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.


----------



## SAYIT

Andylusion said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then  put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.
> 
> Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.
> 
> Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.
> 
> So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.
> 
> *Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*
> 
> There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.
> 
> Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.
> 
> Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.
> 
> B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.
> 
> Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.
> 
> *Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.
> 
> Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.
> 
> Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.
> 
> Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.
> 
> You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.
> 
> *Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*
> 
> People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.
> 
> In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?
> 
> Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.
> 
> On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.
> 
> The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?
> 
> But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.
Click to expand...


The irony (or hypocrisy) being that cities (mostly Dem run) and states offer these abatements - what some call "corporate welfare" - to attract the jobs so many rightly complain are needed. Once accomplished the very same voices then whine about "corporate welfare."


----------



## hadit

David_42 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.
> 
> Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.
> 
> Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.
> 
> So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.
> 
> *Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*
> 
> There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.
> 
> Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.
> 
> Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.
> 
> B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.
> 
> Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.
> 
> *Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.
> 
> Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.
> 
> Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.
> 
> Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.
> 
> You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.
> 
> *Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*
> 
> People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.
> 
> In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?
> 
> Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.
> 
> On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.
> 
> The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?
> 
> But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.
Click to expand...

Define work.  Most likely, you incorrectly think it is not every person in the company.


----------



## David_42

Andylusion said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint?  You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet.  Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs*.  Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.
> 
> Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.
> 
> Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.
> 
> So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.
> 
> *Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.*
> 
> There are only two reasons jobs are created.  A:  There is something that is profitable to do...  B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.
> 
> Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.
> 
> Now two things.   A:  *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.
> 
> B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.
> 
> Both are required.  If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs.   If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.
> 
> *Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time.*   You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.
> 
> Just securing investors into a business can take years.   Planing out the building project can take years.
> 
> Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.
> 
> Most big employment projects take time.   The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product.   But that's simply the build time.   That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.
> 
> You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring.    But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.
> 
> *Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.*
> 
> People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.
> 
> In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped.  Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created?   Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?
> 
> Of course not.  No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.
> 
> On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break.   We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement.  After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement.   After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.
> 
> The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now.   Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?
> 
> But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.
Click to expand...

There are some people who LEAD, then there are those that can only FOLLOW.  Those that lead usually have gone out of their way to educate themselves to be in the leadership position, while the follower, sits back and does enough just to get by.  I am sick of libtards who sit in their basements complaining how unfair life is, while they type on plastics that come from OIL byproducts, brought out of the Earth by those willing to WORK hard to give not only the plastics but the energy they use to bitch on the electrical network.  Go look at the USSR, where everyone was equal, the doctors and breadmakers all made the same wages, no one had anything to own, because everyone was equally poor and equally miserable.  I didn't see anyone jumping over the wall to go INTO the Communist country, but millions were facing machine guns, and barbed wire, to get out of it.  But they don't teach that in public education anymore.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
Click to expand...




> your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that


 The first "your" was correct.  The second "your" should of been "you're".  When it comes to worldview, at one time everyone was jealous of US because being a FREE country, we could reach for the sky and most of US achieved it(there were always a few, who sat back and bitched because they were too lazy to work) but many got complacent and were re-educated into thinking that communism was good.  Now we are dealing with it with a sad sack president who has no clue to run a country, except into the ground.  So here we are, many rich people fleeing America for greener pasture.  Problem is when we go into WWIII, no place will be safe.


----------



## David_42

andaronjim said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first "your" was correct.  The second "your" should of been "you're".  When it comes to worldview, at one time everyone was jealous of US because being a FREE country, we could reach for the sky and most of US achieved it(there were always a few, who sat back and bitched because they were too lazy to work) but many got complacent and were re-educated into thinking that communism was good.  Now we are dealing with it with a sad sack president who has no clue to run a country, except into the ground.  So here we are, many rich people fleeing America for greener pasture.  Problem is when we go into WWIII, no place will be safe.
Click to expand...

People are still jealous of America, this is a great country win opportunity, although some people want this great country to go back to the time before FDR.. LOL. You're trying to imply Obama is a communist? Great. WW3? Yeah, republicans would love that, considering they want Iran to keep its plutonium and it's enriched uranium.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
Click to expand...

Why with HOPE AND CHANGE, the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION, the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, someone would have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet, after 6 3/4 years of the messiah, who promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet?  Because those dumb enough to believe that, were just as dumb as the people who voted for Jimmy(the peanut) Carter and his Malaise government.  Usually it takes events like what we see with this FECKLESS admin to have more people understand that LIBERALISM is all about FAILURE.  The more you fail the more you move up, eventually achieving the ultimate goal, THE RAINBOW HOUSE.  Surround yourselves with more failed people, and soon the country goes down the toilet.  And you bitch that it is the RICH people who are the problem, yet Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)(LIBERAL) Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, have their millions and billions, and you adore them.  Libtards are the dumbest people on the planet.


----------



## David_42

andaronjim said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why with HOPE AND CHANGE, the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION, the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, someone would have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet, after 6 3/4 years of the messiah, who promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet?  Because those dumb enough to believe that, were just as dumb as the people who voted for Jimmy(the peanut) Carter and his Malaise government.  Usually it takes events like what we see with this FECKLESS admin to have more people understand that LIBERALISM is all about FAILURE.  The more you fail the more you move up, eventually achieving the ultimate goal, THE RAINBOW HOUSE.  Surround yourselves with more failed people, and soon the country goes down the toilet.  And you bitch that it is the RICH people who are the problem, yet Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)(LIBERAL) Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, have their millions and billions, and you adore them.  Libtards are the dumbest people on the planet.
Click to expand...

Incoherent rant.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first "your" was correct.  The second "your" should of been "you're".  When it comes to worldview, at one time everyone was jealous of US because being a FREE country, we could reach for the sky and most of US achieved it(there were always a few, who sat back and bitched because they were too lazy to work) but many got complacent and were re-educated into thinking that communism was good.  Now we are dealing with it with a sad sack president who has no clue to run a country, except into the ground.  So here we are, many rich people fleeing America for greener pasture.  Problem is when we go into WWIII, no place will be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People are still jealous of America, this is a great country win opportunity, although some people want this great country to go back to the time before FDR.. LOL. You're trying to imply Obama is a communist? Great. WW3? Yeah, republicans would love that, considering they want Iran to keep its plutonium and it's enriched uranium.
Click to expand...

 Obama: Iran "Over A Year Or So" Away From Nuclear Bomb


> Obama: Iran Over A Year Away From Nuclear Bomb


 Jonathan Gruber and the Stupid Americans


> Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American "LIBERAL" voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.


  The conservatives saw that Obamacare would be a boondoggle, we know that IRAN will develop the bomb that Obama wants so IRAN will go after little SATAN.  You are as stupid as Mr. Gruber proved it.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why with HOPE AND CHANGE, the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION, the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, someone would have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet, after 6 3/4 years of the messiah, who promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet?  Because those dumb enough to believe that, were just as dumb as the people who voted for Jimmy(the peanut) Carter and his Malaise government.  Usually it takes events like what we see with this FECKLESS admin to have more people understand that LIBERALISM is all about FAILURE.  The more you fail the more you move up, eventually achieving the ultimate goal, THE RAINBOW HOUSE.  Surround yourselves with more failed people, and soon the country goes down the toilet.  And you bitch that it is the RICH people who are the problem, yet Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)(LIBERAL) Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, have their millions and billions, and you adore them.  Libtards are the dumbest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incoherent rant.
Click to expand...

When FACTS are brought forth to prove the failure of liberalism all the libs can do is throw out an insult.  Rules for Radicals.


----------



## AquaAthena

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


No, I do not believe in further punishing the rich for earning or inheriting  their way to the top and more than likely contributing in one way or another to your lifestyle or of those you know and love. I like to see the rich in our country remain in our country. They are taxed heavily as is and if they are conservatives they are more than likely contributing to charitable institutions or causes much more so than the rest of the population..


----------



## thanatos144

This thread proves liberals hate thier children 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

thanatos144 said:


> This thread proves liberals hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table.  I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey,  liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.


----------



## David_42

andaronjim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves liberals hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table.  I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey,  liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

Fetuses aren't babies.


----------



## Boss

David_42 said:


> I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.



Then they are doing something wrong. Perhaps they are living above their means? Maybe they've made poor choices which they now are paying for? Maybe they are idiots without any talent or skill and lack any kind of education and are not trainable? Maybe they have poor work ethic and can't get a decent job? Maybe they don't bathe regularly or use deodorant? Maybe they don't know how to manage their money? 

You see, there are LOTS of factors and we don't know any of them with your example because you're not paying any attention to that. You assume they work 3 jobs because of evil capitalists who are too greedy to pay them well. This is how you've been programmed to think. We've got to change your thinking because it's killing us slowly.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

David_42 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves liberals hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table.  I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey,  liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point , dumbass.


----------



## hadit

David_42 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves liberals hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table.  I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey,  liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies.
Click to expand...

Near full term babies are in every biological way identical to babies born early.  Calling them something other than babies is just semantics.


----------



## Andylusion

David_42 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
Click to expand...


Socialistic egalitarianism is a stupid concept, it can never exit, it never will.  Monopolies, corruption, greed...

Note the difference between your post and mine, is that mine is proven by history.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
Click to expand...


Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
> 
> There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. *Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.*
> 
> 
> 
> Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. *There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. *In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
> 
> Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
Click to expand...

Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.


----------



## David_42

Andylusion said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obvious.  I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "
> "Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialistic egalitarianism is a stupid concept, it can never exit, it never will.  Monopolies, corruption, greed...
> 
> Note the difference between your post and mine, is that mine is proven by history.
Click to expand...

No one wants a socialistic egalitarianism, pure socialism and pure capitalism both fail, this is a proven historical reality. Monopolies formed whenever capitalism was left unregulated, you always bitch about big government, what do you think happens when a business grows massive and dominates? This happened, and it destroyed small businesses as well. Corruption and greed exist in all aspects of life, unregulated capitalism spirals this greed out of control.


----------



## bripat9643

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
Click to expand...


Everyone is intelligent in their own way?  That's another way of saying that not everyone is intelligent.

Otherwise, your post is total bullshit.  Not everyone can be wealthy.  It would be absurd to believe that was possible.  Since not everyone can do it, you want know one to have that opportunity.  Your attacks are motivated by envy, pure and simple.  

It's really quite ugly.


----------



## David_42

bripat9643 said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is intelligent in their own way?  That's another way of saying that not everyone is intelligent.
> 
> Otherwise, your post is total bullshit.  Not everyone can be wealthy.  It would be absurd to believe that was possible.  Since not everyone can do it, you want know one to have that opportunity.  Your attacks are motivated by envy, pure and simple.
> 
> It's really quite ugly.
Click to expand...

Err, sorry that we disagree on how intelligence is measured, material wealth does not equal someone's intelligence level, just look at trump. No shit, and I know that, what I do support is everyone having a minimum standard of living, a ladder that is easier to move up, progressive taxation, welfare programs.. Wealth is fine, unregulated greed isn't.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

What if someone doesn't want a minimum standard of living, are you going to FORCE that standard on them?  I see many impoverished people living under a bridge right outside a CNN office in Washington DC and not once has those cretin's come out and do an interview on what it is like living under the dictator.  But then all you have to do is go back to the USSR and see how well they did also.  Every 40 years or so, history repeats itself, because people forget history.


----------



## dcraelin

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with 'inequality'.   Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.
> 
> Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense.  That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
Click to expand...



In a market based system at least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives, who claim to believe so much in the market, always seem to forget that factor.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
Click to expand...


Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion it's ok to buy products made by young children in concentration camps in china and mexico. Who gives a shit if they are working for 1/10th of US wages?  It's just fair competition for labor right?  Who gives a fuck if they screw the world over by dumping pollution into the ocean?  Who cares.. so long as we get to buy cheap stuff here in the states, right?


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
Click to expand...


you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"   how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust......


----------



## dcraelin

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work combined with intelligence and responsibility is what leads to wealth.  The idea that no one in the world is lazy, stupid or irresponsible is absurd.  There are plenty of people in this world who find the truth insulting.  That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your opinion it's ok to buy products made by young children in sweat shops in china and mexico. Who gives a shit if they are working for 1/10th of US wages?  It's just fair competition labor jobs right?  Who gives a fuck if they screw the world over by dumping pollution into the ocean?  Who cares.. so long as we get to buy cheap stuff here in the states, right?
Click to expand...


Where in the world did yo get THAT from what I said.?


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your opinion it's ok to buy products made by young children in sweat shops in china and mexico. Who gives a shit if they are working for 1/10th of US wages?  It's just fair competition labor jobs right?  Who gives a fuck if they screw the world over by dumping pollution into the ocean?  Who cares.. so long as we get to buy cheap stuff here in the states, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the world did yo get THAT from what I said.?
Click to expand...

Our system for wages (work) is not based on supply and demand.  It's based on dumping.  Dumping of illegals, h1bs, inshoring, offshoring, and over regulation here in the states with no care for the non-regulation overseas.


----------



## dcraelin

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your opinion it's ok to buy products made by young children in sweat shops in china and mexico. Who gives a shit if they are working for 1/10th of US wages?  It's just fair competition labor jobs right?  Who gives a fuck if they screw the world over by dumping pollution into the ocean?  Who cares.. so long as we get to buy cheap stuff here in the states, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the world did yo get THAT from what I said.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our system for wages (work) is not based on supply and demand.  It's based on dumping.  Dumping of illegals, h1bs, inshoring, offshoring, and over regulation here in the states with no care for the non-regulation overseas.
Click to expand...


Well I partially agree, ...some would say that just allows for a market based market in labor...forgetting that rules have to be in place to police markets.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
Click to expand...


Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.



dcraelin said:


> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......



Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I said, dumbass.   Hard work, intelligence, and responsibility lead to wealth. It's not the "measure of wealth."  Money is the measure of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
Click to expand...


In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...

Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.

There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your opinion it's ok to buy products made by young children in sweat shops in china and mexico. Who gives a shit if they are working for 1/10th of US wages?  It's just fair competition labor jobs right?  Who gives a fuck if they screw the world over by dumping pollution into the ocean?  Who cares.. so long as we get to buy cheap stuff here in the states, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the world did yo get THAT from what I said.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our system for wages (work) is not based on supply and demand.  It's based on dumping.  Dumping of illegals, h1bs, inshoring, offshoring, and over regulation here in the states with no care for the non-regulation overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I partially agree, ...some would say that just allows for a market based market in labor...forgetting that rules have to be in place to police markets.
Click to expand...

Correct.  One sided rules that harm the American worker and our wage rates ... that's not a free market.  That's an oligopoly system with the government working for the company owners.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard work is done by billions every day around the world, including children and the elderly. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, expecting intelligence to directly lead to money is stupid, money is not a measure of someone's hard work. Responsibility? Anyone who survives in this broken world knows responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
Click to expand...

Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.


----------



## GWV5903

David_42 said:


> So you believe wealth is the only measure of hard work? What a fucking idiot.



This makes it so clear...

Your bias gets in your way...

Do you think for just a second you could open your mind to the other side?


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a market based system a least some of the difference in wealth is explained by supply and demand for various work.  It amazes me that conservatives who claim to believe so much in the market always forget that factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
Click to expand...

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.


----------



## RKMBrown

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
Click to expand...

Liar.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people produce what people demand and acquire the skills people demand.  Stupid people produce nothing of value to anyone and have no valuable skills, so your argument doesn't invalidate anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
Click to expand...

Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is true simply Because i say so.


----------



## danielpalos

andaronjim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you consider a social safety net a "reward" under our form of Capitalism.  

In any Case, why Only complain about social safety nets for the least wealthy, when the wealthiest even get to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses on their "social safety nets".


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

What ever happened to "FAMILY".  At one time people would take care of the young, their wives, their parents, all under the same roof.  Today, you would be lucky to find a father, who takes care of HIS kids and wife.  Liberal government replaced Daddy with Uncle Sugar, so more young ones grow up mad as hell, and go out of their way to show their anger.  Just look at the inner city and why social safety nets end up killing people.  Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Votto

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Those who clamor for higher taxes never tell us how that wealth will trickle down to the poor.  Everyone just assumes that the money will magically wind up in their bank accounts when really the only thing that will happen is that the government will continue to spend about 10 times whatever they take in regarding revenue.

And to think that you can remove greed from society just by taking their wealth is absurd.  Just the other day I heard some poor soul who delivered pizzas was shot for a free pizza.

Legislating morality is for tards.

The fact of the matter is, the money left in the hands of citizens is more likely to go to good use than it will in the hands of those in government.


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure



Are things better now?  Nope.

Why not people have their economic freedom then?


----------



## hadit

Votto said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who clamor for higher taxes never tell us how that wealth will trickle down to the poor.  Everyone just assumes that the money will magically wind up in their bank accounts when really the only thing that will happen is that the government will continue to spend about 10 times whatever they take in regarding revenue.
> 
> And to think that you can remove greed from society just by taking their wealth is absurd.  Just the other day I heard some poor soul who delivered pizzas was shot for a free pizza.
> 
> Legislating morality is for tards.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the money left in the hands of citizens is more likely to go to good use than it will in the hands of those in government.
Click to expand...

They don't talk about it because that's not their real goal.  They just want to punish the successful, and think the wealth is better off in government hands.


----------



## thanatos144

This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

thanatos144 said:


> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


The government, that is who will employ you, at the point of a gun. You "WILL" work for the measly little sustenance that they give you, or you will be shot or sent to the gulag.  I mean that was what the liberal in the USSR did, when you didn't do what the government said.  Here we have had the Dumbocrats FORCING us to buy healthcare or be punished.  Just another inch closer to the United Communist States of America.


----------



## Andylusion

David_42 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!*_
> 
> _Now that's funny!_
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
Click to expand...


I don't any problem with the "facts".  The "facts" are the "facts".   My problem is that you take two unrelated "facts" and combine them into an assumed link, which is "Opinion".

*Your OPINION, of the "facts" is not a "fact".*

Now you said a ton of wrong things in that post, and so I can't answer them all, because that would be a 15 page post.  So let's just talk about one aspect.   Social Mobility and Income equality, as it relates to the most popular example:  Sweden.

Yes, there are countries where the top people earn quite a bit less.   And that is slowly going away.   Sweden is not the egalitarian paradise that you people on the left, make it out to be.

In the 1980s, CEO pay in Sweden was relatively modest compared to the other western countries.   But times have changed.  Most of the articles still written today proclaiming the virtues of the Swedish low-pay CEO, are all based on outdated data.

Swedish CEO salaries 'unacceptable': union - The Local
Unions screaming about CEO pay, just like here.  People earning $2 to $4 Million in pay per year, just like here.

Lower CEO Pay and Better Results in Europe?

*This article explains it fairly well.    CEOs in Sweden were fine earning what they did, as long as they remained isolated in Sweden.* 

But all that has changed over time.   International Swedish corporations send people abroad to work in subsidiaries in other countries, and after getting used to the higher pay, refuse to return to Sweden.

Additionally, international head hunters, and companies looking for top quality talent, have no problem making a job offer to a executive at a Swedish corporation, where the offer could be for a less stressful job, and yet pay double their wage.

Worse, Swedish companies have no recourse.   Sending a job offer for a fraction of the pay, to an employee abroad, is a difficult sell.   Come to Sweden.  You'll earn a fraction of what you are now, and lose more of what less you get, in taxes.

Now for the record, I have no problem if you can get a CEO to work for $150,000 a year.... great knock yourself out.    Go make your own corporation, and try and pay the CEO that little.  You realize that Jeffery Skillings, of Enron fame, was only paid a salary of $275,000 when he first came as CEO of Enron subsidiary....   What a bargain that was.

People on the left, like to pretend that the reason CEOs in Sweden and Japan work for a fraction of US wages, is because of their policies.  And if we put in place the same policies, suddenly CEO will all work for $150K a year.

Not true.   There are no laws that prevent CEOs in Sweden and Japan from earning more.  They don't earn more by choice.  As time goes on, and economic incentives push up wages, Sweden and Japan both, have seen a dramatic rise in CEO wages.

From the other side of the argument, I also have a problem with the claims that social mobility is higher in Sweden or Japan.   That claim is just flat out not true.

*The problem is that admittedly the high end of the income spectrum is lower in Sweden. * What people seem to ignore, is that this inherently and mathematically, skews income mobility.

Think about it....  say country A has an income top end of $10 Million, and country B has an income top end of $300,000.

You have two people, one in each country.  Both start off earning zero, and take an entry level position making $15,000 a year.  The person in country A, moves up (over time) to a $200,000 a year position.  The person in country B moves up to a $100,000 a year position.

Who has advanced up the Social Mobility ladder farther?  The person in country B.   Not because his income has progressed more than the similar person in country A.... but rather because the top is lower.

The person A is doing far better, by a wide margin, than person B, but simply because the ladder is smaller, person B is closer to the top than person A.

So the idea that income mobility is better in some of this countries is rather dubious.

*Lastly, I have some fundamental doubts to the validity of the claims*.   I have no doubt that the numbers given are accurate to their source.... but is the source correct?

I'll give you an example.   Stefan Parsson, is 'estimated' to be the most wealthy person in all of Sweden.  24th most wealthy man in the world today.

Tell me how much he makes?   What's his income?

Do you know?  You have a source?   I'd love to know.   I searched all the most reputable sources I knew of.   I search Forbes.  I search Bloomberg.  I search FT, CNN Money.   I checked some Swedish media sources, and even a couple (not many), printed in Swedish using Google translate.

Finally I checked Hennes & Mauritz company information.   None of what I checked anywhere said how much he earns, or what his compensation or salary is.

Nor could I locate how much H&M pays any of their executive board.

So when you claim executives are paid a modest salary in Sweden..... how do you know? Based on what?

Do you think Mr Persson lives a life similar to that of ordinary Swedes?    Persson owns 9,000 acers of land in the UK, is / has built a 9 bedroom mansion, with 12-car parking, and 9 full time employees.  That's just the UK.   He owns prime real-estate in Paris, and several other countries.

By the way, the entire reason H&M went public, was to avoid the inheritance tax in Sweden.  So he still owns the company, but was able to avoid taxes.   So even in Sweden, the proclaimed socialist paradise (not true at all), the rich still avoid taxes just like here.

But my point is, do you think that Persson with his three yachts, that float him around to his mansions around the world, or any of the other super wealthy live even remotely similar lives to the ordinary Swedes?   You think that because their statistical CEO wages are lower than that of the rest of the western world, that they are living any less lavishly?  

*So while left-wing economists cook up a bunch of stats, that are interesting data to look at, it's far from proving the left-wing claims you suggest they do.*


----------



## dcraelin

thanatos144 said:


> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



some poor entrepreneur who has  borrowed money to start the business hes always wanted to have


----------



## Votto

thanatos144 said:


> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



The eat the rich rhetoric is actually smart.  People love to covet.

It reminds me of how Hitler heavily taxed the top 4% in Germany.  The average German loved it.  Even though it did not bring in much revenue to speak of, people loved the fact that rich folk were being brought down to their level.

In fact, the Jewish population were financially more successful in Nazi Germany than the average citizen like they are in the US today and around the world.  People continue to covet them and is a good explanation for the rampant anti-Semitism of years past and of today.


----------



## GWV5903

David_42 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves liberals hate thier children
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That is if the unborn baby got past the executioners knife on the abortion table.  I heard that some parts have been sold for profit, but hey,  liberals would sell their mothers if they could get away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Fetuses aren't babies*.
Click to expand...


So you came here from an egg?


----------



## Andylusion

dcraelin said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some poor entrepreneur who has  borrowed money to start the business hes always wanted to have
Click to expand...


What are you smoking?     Without the rich, the banks don't have any money to lend out.   Try again.


----------



## RKMBrown

andaronjim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the supply and demand factor in your explanation of wealth entirely.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you over-hype I think the effect of "hard work intelligence and responsibility"  how many millions did these corrupt bankers make in the run up to the housing bust.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
Click to expand...

ok yeah agreed.


----------



## danielpalos

andaronjim said:


> What ever happened to "FAMILY".  At one time people would take care of the young, their wives, their parents, all under the same roof.  Today, you would be lucky to find a father, who takes care of HIS kids and wife.  Liberal government replaced Daddy with Uncle Sugar, so more young ones grow up mad as hell, and go out of their way to show their anger.  Just look at the inner city and why social safety nets end up killing people.  Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


We got socialism to bailout capitalism; like usual for more developed economies.  

Capitalism still doesn't have a profit motive to have a Moon Race.


----------



## danielpalos

We need the the equivalent to an oil pump that circulates liquidity in our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no I didn't.  As I noted, the rich produce what people *DEMAND*.  They acquire skills that employers *DEMAND *and that are in short *SUPPLY*.  That's why heart surgeons get rich, but clerks at 7-11 remain poor. People with the skills needed to be a clerk are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Politicians and government bureaucrats caused the housing bust, not bankers.  The later did what the politicians and bureaucrats ordered them to do:  give mortgages to people who couldn't make the payments.  A lot of banks lost their asses and went bust because of the real estate bubble.  Almost none made more money than they would have otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
Click to expand...

Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a fully functioning, transparent market there would be a tendency towards less concentrated wealth creation.....large concentrations of wealth point to lack of competition...
> 
> Politicians, as Trump likes to point out, do the bidding of the rich and influential, so to say the politicians and the government bureaucrats caused the housing bust is seeing only half the picture....someone influential in our broken system...wanted the policies that were in place.....likely so they could get even wealthier trading in guaranteed mortgages etc.
> 
> There are many examples of the rich milking government....it is the main thing that needs to be gotten rid of to cut the cost of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.


----------



## David_42

Andylusion said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth hurts.
> Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The causes of wealth inequality?"  The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The determination was made entirely on bullshit.  You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
> 
> Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality.  The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching.  Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy.  Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "*Welfare* is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as _public aid_."
> Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
> Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
> "Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
> "Passed by Congress on *July 2, 1909*, and ratified *February 3, 1913*, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
> You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
> How do you define a welfare state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't any problem with the "facts".  The "facts" are the "facts".   My problem is that you take two unrelated "facts" and combine them into an assumed link, which is "Opinion".
> 
> *Your OPINION, of the "facts" is not a "fact".*
> 
> Now you said a ton of wrong things in that post, and so I can't answer them all, because that would be a 15 page post.  So let's just talk about one aspect.   Social Mobility and Income equality, as it relates to the most popular example:  Sweden.
> 
> Yes, there are countries where the top people earn quite a bit less.   And that is slowly going away.   Sweden is not the egalitarian paradise that you people on the left, make it out to be.
> 
> In the 1980s, CEO pay in Sweden was relatively modest compared to the other western countries.   But times have changed.  Most of the articles still written today proclaiming the virtues of the Swedish low-pay CEO, are all based on outdated data.
> 
> Swedish CEO salaries 'unacceptable': union - The Local
> Unions screaming about CEO pay, just like here.  People earning $2 to $4 Million in pay per year, just like here.
> 
> Lower CEO Pay and Better Results in Europe?
> 
> *This article explains it fairly well.    CEOs in Sweden were fine earning what they did, as long as they remained isolated in Sweden.*
> 
> But all that has changed over time.   International Swedish corporations send people abroad to work in subsidiaries in other countries, and after getting used to the higher pay, refuse to return to Sweden.
> 
> Additionally, international head hunters, and companies looking for top quality talent, have no problem making a job offer to a executive at a Swedish corporation, where the offer could be for a less stressful job, and yet pay double their wage.
> 
> Worse, Swedish companies have no recourse.   Sending a job offer for a fraction of the pay, to an employee abroad, is a difficult sell.   Come to Sweden.  You'll earn a fraction of what you are now, and lose more of what less you get, in taxes.
> 
> Now for the record, I have no problem if you can get a CEO to work for $150,000 a year.... great knock yourself out.    Go make your own corporation, and try and pay the CEO that little.  You realize that Jeffery Skillings, of Enron fame, was only paid a salary of $275,000 when he first came as CEO of Enron subsidiary....   What a bargain that was.
> 
> People on the left, like to pretend that the reason CEOs in Sweden and Japan work for a fraction of US wages, is because of their policies.  And if we put in place the same policies, suddenly CEO will all work for $150K a year.
> 
> Not true.   There are no laws that prevent CEOs in Sweden and Japan from earning more.  They don't earn more by choice.  As time goes on, and economic incentives push up wages, Sweden and Japan both, have seen a dramatic rise in CEO wages.
> 
> From the other side of the argument, I also have a problem with the claims that social mobility is higher in Sweden or Japan.   That claim is just flat out not true.
> 
> *The problem is that admittedly the high end of the income spectrum is lower in Sweden. * What people seem to ignore, is that this inherently and mathematically, skews income mobility.
> 
> Think about it....  say country A has an income top end of $10 Million, and country B has an income top end of $300,000.
> 
> You have two people, one in each country.  Both start off earning zero, and take an entry level position making $15,000 a year.  The person in country A, moves up (over time) to a $200,000 a year position.  The person in country B moves up to a $100,000 a year position.
> 
> Who has advanced up the Social Mobility ladder farther?  The person in country B.   Not because his income has progressed more than the similar person in country A.... but rather because the top is lower.
> 
> The person A is doing far better, by a wide margin, than person B, but simply because the ladder is smaller, person B is closer to the top than person A.
> 
> So the idea that income mobility is better in some of this countries is rather dubious.
> 
> *Lastly, I have some fundamental doubts to the validity of the claims*.   I have no doubt that the numbers given are accurate to their source.... but is the source correct?
> 
> I'll give you an example.   Stefan Parsson, is 'estimated' to be the most wealthy person in all of Sweden.  24th most wealthy man in the world today.
> 
> Tell me how much he makes?   What's his income?
> 
> Do you know?  You have a source?   I'd love to know.   I searched all the most reputable sources I knew of.   I search Forbes.  I search Bloomberg.  I search FT, CNN Money.   I checked some Swedish media sources, and even a couple (not many), printed in Swedish using Google translate.
> 
> Finally I checked Hennes & Mauritz company information.   None of what I checked anywhere said how much he earns, or what his compensation or salary is.
> 
> Nor could I locate how much H&M pays any of their executive board.
> 
> So when you claim executives are paid a modest salary in Sweden..... how do you know? Based on what?
> 
> Do you think Mr Persson lives a life similar to that of ordinary Swedes?    Persson owns 9,000 acers of land in the UK, is / has built a 9 bedroom mansion, with 12-car parking, and 9 full time employees.  That's just the UK.   He owns prime real-estate in Paris, and several other countries.
> 
> By the way, the entire reason H&M went public, was to avoid the inheritance tax in Sweden.  So he still owns the company, but was able to avoid taxes.   So even in Sweden, the proclaimed socialist paradise (not true at all), the rich still avoid taxes just like here.
> 
> But my point is, do you think that Persson with his three yachts, that float him around to his mansions around the world, or any of the other super wealthy live even remotely similar lives to the ordinary Swedes?   You think that because their statistical CEO wages are lower than that of the rest of the western world, that they are living any less lavishly?
> 
> *So while left-wing economists cook up a bunch of stats, that are interesting data to look at, it's far from proving the left-wing claims you suggest they do.*
Click to expand...

When did I mention Sweden?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well our Government's job is to break up the oligopolies and monopolies... so what does it do?  It makes oligopolies and monopolies, at the expense of the tax payer no less.  To big to fail!!  ROFL.. the only group that's not too big to fail?  The US taxpayer.... eff the tax payers all hail the Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
Click to expand...


Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression


----------



## Dad2three

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
Click to expand...



Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> The government, that is who will employ you, at the point of a gun. You "WILL" work for the measly little sustenance that they give you, or you will be shot or sent to the gulag.  I mean that was what the liberal in the USSR did, when you didn't do what the government said.  Here we have had the Dumbocrats FORCING us to buy healthcare or be punished.  Just another inch closer to the United Communist States of America.
Click to expand...


Too funny Bubba, jails huh? lol


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have? 


2/3RDS OF US economy is consumer driven, more hands in the bottom 90% of US, THE Larger the economy!


BUT LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD CALVINIST BS WHERE AT LEAST WE "WORK", LOL


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have?
> 
> 
> 2/3RDS OF US economy is consumer driven, more hands in the bottom 90% of US, THE Larger the economy!
> 
> 
> BUT LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD CALVINIST BS WHERE AT LEAST WE "WORK", LOL
Click to expand...

You idiot they don't have unlimited money

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
Click to expand...


Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
Click to expand...


Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This eat the rich shit is stupid and ignorant. ... hey idiots who is gonna employ your stupid asses once the rich no long have money?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wing EVER have?
> 
> 
> 2/3RDS OF US economy is consumer driven, more hands in the bottom 90% of US, THE Larger the economy!
> 
> 
> BUT LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD CALVINIST BS WHERE AT LEAST WE "WORK", LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You idiot they don't have unlimited money
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


EFFECTIVE TAX RATES 








income shares








THOSE POOR BABY'S...


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should those who don't want to work, be rewarded?  Go back to the 1800's, if you didn't work, you starved.  So more people worked, but thanks to FDR, with a chicken in every pot, and pot in every libs hand, America is slowing killing itself, which has been the plan of the liberals.  If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment, this country would be totally Communist and the "WORKERS" would be FORCED to work at the point of the gun, just like it was in the old USSR.  Shame dipshit liberals are too dumb to study history, so America has to repeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
Click to expand...


Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok yeah agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
Click to expand...


Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
Click to expand...



Oh right, Sorry I thought there were MANY examples of economic freedom in the 3rd world Bubs. India doesn't have it?

PLEASE however, give me ONE example of the Randian fetish to EVER be used successfully? EVER?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Sorry I thought there were MANY examples of economic freedom in the 3rd world Bubs. India doesn't have it?
Click to expand...


Nope.  For many years India wallowed in socialism and bureaucracy.  It has recently liberalized its economic policies to some degree.  Hence the boom in their economy.



Dad2three said:


> PLEASE however, give me ONE example of the Randian fetish to EVER be used successfully? EVER?



Every Western country in the world until the First World War.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
Click to expand...


WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?


_*Index of Economic Freedom*_

7 Chile 
22 Georgia 
24 Czech Republic 
10 Mauritius 
25 United Arab Emirates 
28 Colombia 
14 Taiwan
15 Lithuania 
32 Qatar 
18 Bahrain 
19 Finland
34 Macau 
36 Botswana 
37 Latvia 
65 Rwanda 
38 Jordan 
66 Montenegro 
39 Brunei Darussalam 
67 Trinidad and Tobago 

68 Panama
69 Kazakhstan
70 Turkey 
43 Uruguay  
71 Ghana 
44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
72 South Africa 
46 Barbados
74 Kuwait
47 Peru
75 Thailand
48 Jamaica  
76 Philippines 
77 Saudi Arabia 
50 Slovakia
79 Madagascar 
52 Armenia 
53 Macedonia
81 Croatia 
54 Hungary
82 Kyrgyz Republic 
55 Bulgaria 
83 Paraguay 
56 Oman 
84 Vanuatu 
57 Romania 
85 Azerbaijan 
58 Malta
59 Mexico 
87 Guatemala 
60 Cabo Verde 
62 El Salvador  
90 Serbia 
63 Albania

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Sorry I thought there were MANY examples of economic freedom in the 3rd world Bubs. India doesn't have it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  For many years India wallowed in socialism and bureaucracy.  It has recently liberalized its economic policies to some degree.  Hence the boom in their economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE however, give me ONE example of the Randian fetish to EVER be used successfully? EVER?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Western country in the world until the First World War.
Click to expand...


Socialism? lol

Sorry Bubba, let me be MORE specific, GIVE ME ONE GAWDDAM NATION OR STATE YOU WANT TO CLAIM USED THAT RANDIAN BS!


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the Right usually Only complains when bailing out the least wealthy with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
Click to expand...


Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
Click to expand...


it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 New Zealand
4 Australia
5 Switzerland
6 Canada
7 Chile
8 Estonia
9 Ireland
10 Mauritius
11 Denmark
12 United States
13 United Kingdom
14 Taiwan
15 Lithuania
16 Germany
17 The Netherlands
18 Bahrain
19 Finland
20 Japan
21 Luxembourg


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We complain about bailing anyone out.  The right complained the loudest about Bush's TARP boondoggle.  More Democrats than Republicans voted for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
Click to expand...


The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Sorry I thought there were MANY examples of economic freedom in the 3rd world Bubs. India doesn't have it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  For many years India wallowed in socialism and bureaucracy.  It has recently liberalized its economic policies to some degree.  Hence the boom in their economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE however, give me ONE example of the Randian fetish to EVER be used successfully? EVER?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Western country in the world until the First World War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism? lol
> 
> Sorry Bubba, let me be MORE specific, GIVE ME ONE GAWDDAM NATION OR STATE YOU WANT TO CLAIM USED THAT RANDIAN BS!
Click to expand...


The USA, numskull.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
Click to expand...



Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?

So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the Dems care more about saving US than the ideological right wingers who CREATED the mess that needed a bailout, just like Ronnie's S&L bailout and Harding/Coolidge's great depression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.
Click to expand...


It is when the GOP's in charge alright


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are things better now?  Nope.
> 
> Why not people have their economic freedom then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Komrade was just whining about the government bailing out the wealthy, and here you are endorsing the practice.  You liberal turds can't decide whether you are coming or going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the GOP's in charge alright
Click to expand...


It's always an oxymoron.  Even more so when Democrats are in charge.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, Sorry I thought there were MANY examples of economic freedom in the 3rd world Bubs. India doesn't have it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  For many years India wallowed in socialism and bureaucracy.  It has recently liberalized its economic policies to some degree.  Hence the boom in their economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE however, give me ONE example of the Randian fetish to EVER be used successfully? EVER?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Western country in the world until the First World War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism? lol
> 
> Sorry Bubba, let me be MORE specific, GIVE ME ONE GAWDDAM NATION OR STATE YOU WANT TO CLAIM USED THAT RANDIAN BS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA, numskull.
Click to expand...


SURE BUBS, SURE


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


*When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world.*   Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, *it can be seen as contrary to classical economics*. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. *The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.*



*Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.*


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. *The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.*

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA?*


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Economic freedom? Oh you want US to look like the 3rd world nations your policy would turn US back into?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
Click to expand...



Good, Uncle  Milties lab test


*CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*





Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*

*The results were exactly what liberals predicted*

*Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.*

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*



Chile: the laboratory test


WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Endorsing it Bubs? Oh you mean to stop the consequences of CONservative/GOP policies like 1929?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the GOP's in charge alright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always an oxymoron.  Even more so when Democrats are in charge.
Click to expand...


Name the banking collapse under a Dem Prez Bubs? Oops


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third world nations have never had economic freedom, dipstick.  That's why they are third world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
Click to expand...


What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.

Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.

Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support government bailouts of the wealthy or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the GOP's in charge alright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always an oxymoron.  Even more so when Democrats are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name the banking collapse under a Dem Prez Bubs? Oops
Click to expand...


Pubs always get stuck with the hangover from the Dims alcohol binge.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
Click to expand...



YET CHILE WAS AT THE BOTTOM. Weird right?


1973-1989 the world went through instability???? lol


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuk no, BUT I also support GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS ON THE BEAT TO STOP WHAT HAPPENED UNDER HARDING/COOLIDGE, RONNIE AND DUBYA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "GOOD GOV'T REGULATION AND REGULATORS" is any oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the GOP's in charge alright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always an oxymoron.  Even more so when Democrats are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name the banking collapse under a Dem Prez Bubs? Oops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubs always get stuck with the hangover from the Dims alcohol binge.
Click to expand...




Want to back up your crap, EVER Bubba?


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Wealthiest? oH Right, since they got rid of that Randian BS and started GOOD GOV'T POLICY ??? lol


----------



## Jackson

I can go along with taxing the rich somewhat higher but not so high, they leave the country.  At the same time, I think everyone should have some skin in the game.  Everyone pays!!  Including those on welfare.  All they have to pay is 15%, the minimum.  No deductions.


----------



## Dad2three

Jackson said:


> I can go along with taxing the rich somewhat higher but not so high, they leave the country.  At the same time, I think everyone should have some skin in the game.  Everyone pays!!  Including those on welfare.  All they have to pay is 15%, the minimum.  No deductions.




*The one tax graph you really need to know*

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
 





As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

*But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the* *rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.*

 





*
That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income* -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know


*BOTTOM 50% (HALF) OF AMERICAN'S WHO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS, AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY!!!*


*Top 1/10th of 1% of US make about the same amount as those bottom 50% of US! *


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHICH ONE YOU WANT THE US TO LOOK LIKE BUBBA?
> 
> 
> _*Index of Economic Freedom*_
> 
> 7 Chile
> 22 Georgia
> 24 Czech Republic
> 10 Mauritius
> 25 United Arab Emirates
> 28 Colombia
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 32 Qatar
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 34 Macau
> 36 Botswana
> 37 Latvia
> 65 Rwanda
> 38 Jordan
> 66 Montenegro
> 39 Brunei Darussalam
> 67 Trinidad and Tobago
> 
> 68 Panama
> 69 Kazakhstan
> 70 Turkey
> 43 Uruguay
> 71 Ghana
> 44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
> 72 South Africa
> 46 Barbados
> 74 Kuwait
> 47 Peru
> 75 Thailand
> 48 Jamaica
> 76 Philippines
> 77 Saudi Arabia
> 50 Slovakia
> 79 Madagascar
> 52 Armenia
> 53 Macedonia
> 81 Croatia
> 54 Hungary
> 82 Kyrgyz Republic
> 55 Bulgaria
> 83 Paraguay
> 56 Oman
> 84 Vanuatu
> 57 Romania
> 85 Azerbaijan
> 58 Malta
> 59 Mexico
> 87 Guatemala
> 60 Cabo Verde
> 62 El Salvador
> 90 Serbia
> 63 Albania
> 
> Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
Click to expand...



YOOHOO Bubba, you going to give me ONE state or nation to EVER use your Randian fetishists crap anytime? lol


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET CHILE WAS AT THE BOTTOM. Weird right?
> 
> 
> 1973-1989 the world went through instability???? lol
Click to expand...


At the bottom of what?

GDP per capital in terms of Purchasing Power Parity




Trinidad and Tobago 32,346.41



The Bahamas 31,793.62



Chile 24,170.03



Antigua and Barbuda 23,071.33



Argentina 22,459.00



Panama 21,634.56



Uruguay 21,387.31



Saint Kitts and Nevis 21,073.34



Mexico  18,370.00



Peru  17,787.39



Suriname 17,502.96



Barbados 16,500.31
*Brazil*  15,941.00



Costa Rica 15,534.03



Colombia 14,164.43



Dominican Republic 13,347.97



Venezuela 12,638.84



Grenada 12,091.83



Ecuador 11,839.19



Saint Lucia 11,432.50



Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 11,380.20



Dominica 11,029.40



Jamaica 8,941.65



El Salvador 8,777.6



Paraguay 8,776.30
Belize 8,338.99
Guatemala 7,704.20
Guyana 7,279.77
Bolivia 6,530.17
Nicaragua 5,018.76
Honduras 4,849.30
Haiti 1,846.12


----------



## bripat9643

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's curious that you were afraid to include all the top countries on the list, don't you think?  BTW, before the Obama administration, the USA was ranked #4 on this list.
> 
> 1 Hong Kong
> 2 Singapore
> 3 New Zealand
> 4 Australia
> 5 Switzerland
> 6 Canada
> 7 Chile
> 8 Estonia
> 9 Ireland
> 10 Mauritius
> 11 Denmark
> 12 United States
> 13 United Kingdom
> 14 Taiwan
> 15 Lithuania
> 16 Germany
> 17 The Netherlands
> 18 Bahrain
> 19 Finland
> 20 Japan
> 21 Luxembourg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOOHOO Bubba, you going to give me ONE state or nation to EVER use your Randian fetishists crap anytime? lol
Click to expand...


I already did, moron.


----------



## Jackson

Dad2three said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can go along with taxing the rich somewhat higher but not so high, they leave the country.  At the same time, I think everyone should have some skin in the game.  Everyone pays!!  Including those on welfare.  All they have to pay is 15%, the minimum.  No deductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> *But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the* *rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income* -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM 50% (HALF) OF AMERICAN'S WHO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS, AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY!!!*
> 
> 
> *Top 1/10th of 1% of US make about the same amount as those bottom 50% of US! *
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Federal income tax.  Not sales tax, No state tax for anyone.


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOOHOO Bubba, you going to give me ONE state or nation to EVER use your Randian fetishists crap anytime? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did, moron.
Click to expand...


Oh right, the US which used VERY heavy protectionists policy from our Founding until the 1970's... OOOPS


----------



## Dad2three

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Obama right wing H/F had US at #4?  Doubtful LINKIE?
> 
> So you don't want to provide one of those nations I gave you want to emulate Bubs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind it if we emulated Chile, but the other countries are far down the list of economic freedom.  I would prefer Chile under Pinochet to American under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good, Uncle  Milties lab test
> 
> 
> *CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
> 
> The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. *Between 1973 and 1989*, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. *And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.*
> 
> *The results were exactly what liberals predicted*
> 
> *Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,* alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. *The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. *In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
> 
> *Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story....*
> 
> 
> 
> Chile: the laboratory test
> 
> 
> WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter tripe.  In case you don't remember, the entire world was going through quite a bit of economic instability, including to major oil shocks and a major recession.
> 
> Chile has become the wealthiest country in Latin America.
> 
> Ya, that outcome really sucks for socialists, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET CHILE WAS AT THE BOTTOM. Weird right?
> 
> 
> 1973-1989 the world went through instability???? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the bottom of what?
> 
> GDP per capital in terms of Purchasing Power Parity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinidad and Tobago 32,346.41
> 
> 
> 
> The Bahamas 31,793.62
> 
> 
> 
> Chile 24,170.03
> 
> 
> 
> Antigua and Barbuda 23,071.33
> 
> 
> 
> Argentina 22,459.00
> 
> 
> 
> Panama 21,634.56
> 
> 
> 
> Uruguay 21,387.31
> 
> 
> 
> Saint Kitts and Nevis 21,073.34
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico  18,370.00
> 
> 
> 
> Peru  17,787.39
> 
> 
> 
> Suriname 17,502.96
> 
> 
> 
> Barbados 16,500.31
> *Brazil*  15,941.00
> 
> 
> 
> Costa Rica 15,534.03
> 
> 
> 
> Colombia 14,164.43
> 
> 
> 
> Dominican Republic 13,347.97
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela 12,638.84
> 
> 
> 
> Grenada 12,091.83
> 
> 
> 
> Ecuador 11,839.19
> 
> 
> 
> Saint Lucia 11,432.50
> 
> 
> 
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 11,380.20
> 
> 
> 
> Dominica 11,029.40
> 
> 
> 
> Jamaica 8,941.65
> 
> 
> 
> El Salvador 8,777.6
> 
> 
> 
> Paraguay 8,776.30
> Belize 8,338.99
> Guatemala 7,704.20
> Guyana 7,279.77
> Bolivia 6,530.17
> Nicaragua 5,018.76
> Honduras 4,849.30
> Haiti 1,846.12
Click to expand...





What's THAT got to do with ANYTHING dumbass? It sure doesn't prove YOUR posit that Chile was a success 1973-1989 during that "world wide" downturn, lol


----------



## Dad2three

Jackson said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can go along with taxing the rich somewhat higher but not so high, they leave the country.  At the same time, I think everyone should have some skin in the game.  Everyone pays!!  Including those on welfare.  All they have to pay is 15%, the minimum.  No deductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> 
> So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> *But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the* *rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income* -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
> 
> The one tax graph you really need to know
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM 50% (HALF) OF AMERICAN'S WHO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS, AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY!!!*
> 
> 
> *Top 1/10th of 1% of US make about the same amount as those bottom 50% of US! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about Federal income tax.  Not sales tax, No state tax for anyone.
Click to expand...



Silly me, of course why not cherry pick that 26% of ALL Gov't taxes and focus on that, after all the bottom half of US who AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY (a drop of near;ly $5,000 per family from 1980, pre Reaganomics) , are just living the life of luxury on our hammocks right?


After all ONLY Fed income taxes run Gov't right?


----------



## danielpalos

of Course capitalists should taxed according to their capital under any form of capitalism.  only false capitalists believe otherwise.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> of Course capitalists should taxed according to their capital under any form of capitalism.  only false capitalists believe otherwise.


Dummy my money is mine not your's . All tax on income and production is wrong.  but you idiot socialists don't understand that. To busy worrying about who will pay for killing babies 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> of Course capitalists should taxed according to their capital under any form of capitalism.  only false capitalists believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy my money is mine not your's . All tax on income and production is wrong.  but you idiot socialists don't understand that. To busy worrying about who will pay for killing babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


"All tax on income and production is wrong"


ACCORDING TO WHOM DUMBASS?


*A Tax System Stacked Against the 99 Percent*


LEONA HELMSLEY, the hotel chain executive who was convicted of federal tax evasion in 1989, was notorious for, among other things, reportedly having said that “only the little people pay taxes.”

As a statement of principle, the quotation may well have earned Mrs. Helmsley, who died in 2007, the title Queen of Mean. But as a prediction about the fairness of American tax policy, Mrs. Helmsley’s remark might actually have been prescient.

Today, the deadline for filing individual income-tax returns, is a day when Americans would do well to pause and reflect on our tax system and the society it creates. No one enjoys paying taxes, and yet all but the extreme libertarians agree, *as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, that taxes are the price we pay for civilized society*. But in recent decades, the burden for paying that price has been distributed in increasingly unfair ways.

About 6 in 10 of us believe that the tax system is unfair — and they’re right: put simply, the very rich don’t pay their fair share. *The richest 400 individual taxpayers, with an average income of more than $200 million, pay less than 20 percent of their income in taxes — far lower than mere millionaires, who pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes, and about the same as those earning a mere $200,000 to $500,000*. And in 2009, 116 of the top 400 earners — almost a third — paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

Conservatives like to point out that the richest Americans’ tax payments make up a large portion of total receipts. This is true, as well it should be in any tax system that is progressive — that is, a system that taxes the affluent at higher rates than those of modest means. *It’s also true that as the wealthiest Americans’ incomes have skyrocketed in recent years, their total tax payments have grown. This would be so even if we had a single flat income-tax rate across the board.*

* What should shock and outrage us is that as the top 1 percent has grown extremely rich, the effective tax rates they pay have markedly decreased. Our tax system is much less progressive than it was for much of the 20th century.


Tax fairness has gotten much worse in the 30 years since the Reagan “revolution” of the 1980s.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_r=0


*


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> of Course capitalists should taxed according to their capital under any form of capitalism.  only false capitalists believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy my money is mine not your's . All tax on income and production is wrong.  but you idiot socialists don't understand that. To busy worrying about who will pay for killing babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

it is Only yours to a certain extent.  in any case, why not quit your day job if socialism is too much hard work for lazy capitalists.


----------



## danielpalos

yet, now many People want to end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror to end our income tax.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
Click to expand...

*
Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
*
He lies!!!


----------



## kaz

Toddsterpatriot said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
Click to expand...


Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.

Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

kaz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...


Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs


*TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*








"The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*


*TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*



Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!


*CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline
*

* Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *


*



*


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...


*Bush vs. Obama: Private Sector Job Creation*





Under President Obama's leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 64 straight months.* During this span, 12.8 million private sector jobs have been created.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs


> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)


 So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
Click to expand...



FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol


Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?


*Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*


By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.


*TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_


Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.

Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL


LMAOROG


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol
> 
> 
> Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?
> 
> 
> *Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*
> 
> 
> By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
> 
> 
> *TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_
> 
> 
> Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
> 
> Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL
> 
> 
> LMAOROG
Click to expand...

Oil train fire: Tankers derail, catch fire in Lynchburg, Va.


> Oil train fire started after several tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Va. The oil train fire caused the evacuation of nearby buildings but no injuries have been reported, according to Lynchburg officials.


 yes this oil did employee fire fighters and produced a ton of CO2 that you lefties hate.  So Warren lost a few barrels of oil and what wildlife was destroyed(who cares as long as a liberal does it) because of the risk in transporting oil by Rail.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol
> 
> 
> Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?
> 
> 
> *Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*
> 
> 
> By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
> 
> 
> *TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_
> 
> 
> Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
> 
> Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL
> 
> 
> LMAOROG
Click to expand...



More stupid crap from daddy pee pee?

Saudi Arabia controls the market place dumb ass...

Don't you see what they are fucking doing?


----------



## kaz

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


Part right, I don't respect you, Republican


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol
> 
> 
> Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?
> 
> 
> *Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*
> 
> 
> By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
> 
> 
> *TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_
> 
> 
> Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
> 
> Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL
> 
> 
> LMAOROG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil train fire: Tankers derail, catch fire in Lynchburg, Va.
> 
> 
> 
> Oil train fire started after several tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Va. The oil train fire caused the evacuation of nearby buildings but no injuries have been reported, according to Lynchburg officials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes this oil did employee fire fighters and produced a ton of CO2 that you lefties hate.  So Warren lost a few barrels of oil and what wildlife was destroyed(who cares as long as a liberal does it) because of the risk in transporting oil by Rail.
Click to expand...




The *2013 Mayflower oil spill* occurred on March 29, 2013, when an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas, about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock. Approximately 12,000 barrels (1,900 m3) of oil mixed with water had been recovered by March 31. Twenty-two homes were evacuated
2013 Mayflower oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century*

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
Click to expand...



FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol


Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?


*Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*


By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.


*TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_


Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.

Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL


LMAOROG


bear513 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, using the White House’s stimulus math, the president should be saying Keystone XL would create as many as 7,800 construction jobs. (Note: please see update below.)
> 
> 
> 
> So Warren Buffet should make his 100's of millions of dollars? Should there be some work for those out of work, that would  be better than being on welfare, right?  God you libtards are so in the tank for your liberal 1%'ers while they screw over America making their millions and billions and then you bitch when these same people come out and say America isn't taxed enough.  Dumbasses all of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FIFTY FULL TIME JOBS? Oh right better the Koch's make the money than Buffett? lol
> 
> 
> Isn't the RR creating jobs Bubs?
> 
> 
> *Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers*
> 
> 
> By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
> 
> 
> *TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “*_*Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.* Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. *The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”*_
> 
> 
> Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
> 
> Tar Sands Action » Key Facts on Keystone XL
> 
> 
> LMAOROG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More stupid crap from daddy pee pee?
> 
> Saudi Arabia controls the market place dumb ass...
> 
> Don't you see what they are fucking doing?
Click to expand...


Yet the US's largest export IS oil products. Weird


----------



## Londoner

*During the postwar years American workers made the highest wages in the world. *

This meant that Americans could support their families without going into debt. It also meant that the mom could afford to stay home with the kids.

1945 to 1973 was a golden age of Capitalism.* We had a thriving middle class who could afford to send their children to college* (which was kept affordable by government). American born into the lower class could lift themselves up through high wages and affordable education.

Because American workers made higher wages, the could pay higher taxes and share in the tax burden that comes with the world's largest miliary and most advanced industrial economy.

*But there was a problem. Business did not want to pay the labor costs associated with a thriving middle class; and they didn't want to pay for the advanced industrial infrastructure that underlay their profit *(think of satellite systems, transportation systems, patent system, legal system, energy grids, etc). And our corporations did not want to pay the environmental costs of protecting our drinking water and air. Instead, our corporations wanted the higher profits that came from cheap Chinese labor  and zero environmental regulations.

*So the wealthy found a candidate who was willing to dismantle the postwar wage system and help them ship jobs to freedom-hating nations like China, a place where our corporations didn't have to worry about an expensive middle class sprouting up near one of their supply chains.*

Reagan was that candidate.

In addition to initiating mass deindustrialization (as jobs were sent to cheaper labor markets in Asia) Reagan declared war on unions and initiated policies that lowered domestic labor costs.

To understand the Reagan transition to low wages, compare the General Motors wage/benefit structure to Walmart's. The General Motors wage structure is typical of the postwar years where the average job paid enough for the father to support his family and send his children to college. It came with great health coverage. The wages/benefits were so good that government could tax these employees and raise revenue to fund national infrastructure and national defense.

Fast forward to Reagan's world of low wages/high corporate profits, and consider our largest retail employer, Walmart. Walmart employees barely make enough money to scrape-by. The majority of them get no health benefits and are getting some form of government assistance to stay afloat. They don't have enough money to pay taxes, and they typically take on massive debt to survive.

You can say that Walmart or retail workers should just get better jobs, but this is one of our largest sectors - and it no longer pays a living wage.

If wealthy people want to share their tax burden with workers, they should pay them a livable wage or at least take a long look at the wage structure.

I understand that you don't want the wealthy to pay higher taxes, but this is what happens to the people who make all the money.


----------



## RKMBrown

Londoner said:


> *During the postwar years American workers made the highest wages in the world. *
> 
> This meant that Americans could support their families without going into debt. It also meant that the mom could afford to stay home with the kids.
> 
> 1945 to 1973 was a golden age of Capitalism.* We had a thriving middle class who could afford to send their children to college* (which was kept affordable by government). American born into the lower class could lift themselves up through high wages and affordable education.
> 
> Because American workers made higher wages, the could pay higher taxes and share in the tax burden that comes with the world's largest miliary and most advanced industrial economy.
> 
> *But there was a problem. Business did not want to pay the labor costs associated with a thriving middle class; and they didn't want to pay for the advanced industrial infrastructure that underlay their profit *(think of satellite systems, transportation systems, patent system, legal system, energy grids, etc). And our corporations did not want to pay the environmental costs of protecting our drinking water and air. Instead, our corporations wanted the higher profits that came from cheap Chinese labor  and zero environmental regulations.
> 
> *So the wealthy found a candidate who was willing to dismantle the postwar wage system and help them ship jobs to freedom-hating nations like China, a place where our corporations didn't have to worry about an expensive middle class sprouting up near one of their supply chains.*
> 
> Reagan was that candidate.
> 
> In addition to initiating mass deindustrialization (as jobs were sent to cheaper labor markets in Asia) Reagan declared war on unions and initiated policies that lowered domestic labor costs.
> 
> To understand the Reagan transition to low wages, compare the General Motors wage/benefit structure to Walmart's. The General Motors wage structure is typical of the postwar years where the average job paid enough for the father to support his family and send his children to college. It came with great health coverage. The wages/benefits were so good that government could tax these employees and raise revenue to fund national infrastructure and national defense.
> 
> Fast forward to Reagan's world of low wages/high corporate profits, and consider our largest retail employer, Walmart. Walmart employees barely make enough money to scrape-by. The majority of them get no health benefits and are getting some form of government assistance to stay afloat. They don't have enough money to pay taxes, and they typically take on massive debt to survive.
> 
> You can say that Walmart or retail workers should just get better jobs, but this is one of our largest sectors - and it no longer pays a living wage.
> 
> If wealthy people want to share their tax burden with workers, they should pay them a livable wage or at least take a long look at the wage structure.
> 
> I understand that you don't want the wealthy to pay higher taxes, but this is what happens to the people who make all the money.


(which was kept affordable by government) ROFL You're a moron.  Government (communists) decided everyone should have the opportunity to go to college so it provided grants and loans to everyone on the backs of the taxpayers then forgave the loans if you can't afford to pay them back.  NOTHING CAN INCREASE THE PRICES FASTER THAN MAKING IT FREE FOR EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T DESERVE THE THING AND CAN'T AFFORD IT.  The easiest way to break the back of a free market... government handouts.  Yeah you're a communist piece of shit coward that wants to eat the rich.  You're a worthless pieces of communist shit who can't fathom the concept of work and self respect.  Assets such as wealth are not a limited resource you dumb ass.


----------



## skye

Sorry to be so late to the party...

you have to define rich first...

if we are talking

trillionaires or may be billionaires....what the fig do I know LOL ... if we are talking that...may be millionaires  too 

why not ....pay a lil bit more what the heck!


----------



## RKMBrown

skye said:


> Sorry to be so late to the party...
> 
> you have to define rich first...
> 
> if we are talking
> 
> trillionaires or may be billionaires....what the fig do I know LOL ... if we are talking that...may be millionaires  too
> 
> why not ....pay a lil bit more what the heck!


Yeah cause retirees with 401k nest eggs need to be taught a lesson!!!


----------



## Andylusion

skye said:


> Sorry to be so late to the party...
> 
> you have to define rich first...
> 
> if we are talking
> 
> trillionaires or may be billionaires....what the fig do I know LOL ... if we are talking that...may be millionaires  too
> 
> why not ....pay a lil bit more what the heck!



I wager you earn a ton more than I do.  Why don't you pay a lil bit more what the heck?


----------



## Andylusion

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
Click to expand...


Warren Buffet does not pay less tax than his secretary.

But he has made billions off of Obama.   One of the things he bought into, was the train companies, which got a healthy boast from the stimulus package.  But taxing the public, to make billionaires wealthy is only bad if other people do it.  Not left-wingers.   It's ok for them.  You must have missed the memo on that.


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet does not pay less tax than his secretary.
> 
> But he has made billions off of Obama.   One of the things he bought into, was the train companies, which got a healthy boast from the stimulus package.  But taxing the public, to make billionaires wealthy is only bad if other people do it.  Not left-wingers.   It's ok for them.  You must have missed the memo on that.
Click to expand...



"Left wingers"? Oh you mean the guys supporting the Buffet rule whee there is a min 30% tax, unlike today where Mittens paid 12%-14% on million of dollars?


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to be so late to the party...
> 
> you have to define rich first...
> 
> if we are talking
> 
> trillionaires or may be billionaires....what the fig do I know LOL ... if we are talking that...may be millionaires  too
> 
> why not ....pay a lil bit more what the heck!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause retirees with 401k nest eggs need to be taught a lesson!!!
Click to expand...



Lot of retirees with $200,000+ incomes huh? lol


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

I bet those people kinda worked hard to get where they did, that they didn't sit back and bitch and moan how unfair the world was to them.  They didn't look for a government handout, but put money into retirement accounts that gave them a tax haven from the federal government that was stealing from them just so they could give that money to someone else sitting in their parents home, typing on computers , who end up voting dumbocrat.  So I guess when these people were taxed when they earned their money, taxed when they spent their money, they should be taxed again, because they were smart enough to provide for their future?


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> I bet those people kinda worked hard to get where they did, that they didn't sit back and bitch and moan how unfair the world was to them.  They didn't look for a government handout, but put money into retirement accounts that gave them a tax haven from the federal government that was stealing from them just so they could give that money to someone else sitting in their parents home, typing on computers , who end up voting dumbocrat.  So I guess when these people were taxed when they earned their money, taxed when they spent their money, they should be taxed again, because they were smart enough to provide for their future?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet those people kinda worked hard to get where they did, that they didn't sit back and bitch and moan how unfair the world was to them.  They didn't look for a government handout, but put money into retirement accounts that gave them a tax haven from the federal government that was stealing from them just so they could give that money to someone else sitting in their parents home, typing on computers , who end up voting dumbocrat.  So I guess when these people were taxed when they earned their money, taxed when they spent their money, they should be taxed again, because they were smart enough to provide for their future?
Click to expand...

you liberals do have a hard on for the Koch brothers, but why don't you have an issue with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and their billions and millions?  Because when liberals use the government to make their billions, you are okay with it, but when conservatives use supply side economics, then they must be evil.  You tards are dumber than a box of rocks.


----------



## thanatos144

kaz said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
Click to expand...

What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

thanatos144 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lets see
Kept slaves
Split the union because of slavery
Hung free blacks and white republicans
Declared War on American Indians put them on the trail of tears
Separated drinking fountains and bathrooms by race
Created internment camps for German Americans
Created Planned Parenthood to use eugenics on those not deemed worthy for survival
Used propaganda against the US citizens so well that it was copied by the Nazi's
This link has more of what liberals have done to this country   Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Liberal/Progressive all starts with Socialism(A history lesson) | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Andylusion

kaz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
Click to expand...


From what I've read, Buffet's 'secretary' makes over $200K (based on the percentage in taxes Buffet claims his secretary pays).


----------



## Dad2three

Andylusion said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a real quick input then you all can go back to attacking each other.  I spent 5 1/2 years over in Saudi Arabia as a contractor working on the S.A. F-15s.  Up to 70k dollars it was tax free except that I had to pay S.S. which was required.  Any monies earned over that 70K was going to be taxed at the U.S. rate.  So I made sure I didn't go over the 70k.  But then I did have a 10k deduction for having my family over there, so I took 10k of stock profit burned it off, claimed it on my 1040 and after 3 years, used up 30k of profits for about 600 dollars.  Was this a bad thing I did, or did I follow the LAW, and used what I knew to my benefit?  For I was wrong, then you can bet Bill Gates(Liberal) Warren Buffet(Liberal), Al Gore(Liberal) and any other liberal elite has done wrong, worse than me, yet you dumbasses keep voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't pay Saudi's 0%  personal income tax rate? lol
> 
> Even though the IRS mandates every taxpayer to report international income, it also allows for various deductions which lessen the impact of US income tax liability.  The primary deductions which help to prevent double taxation and reduce the taxes you owe in the US are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) – Allows US expats to deduct up to $92,900 of all foreign earned income from US taxable income.
> FTC (Foreign Tax Credit) – Allows US expats to clam a dollar for dollar credit against their US expat tax return for foreign taxes paid to the host country.
> Foreign Housing Deduction – Allows US expats to deduct qualifying housing costs incurred by moving and living overseas
> 
> 
> If you take advantage of these deductions when filing a US expat tax return, *you may be able to escape all tax liability with the United States.  It’s important to understand, however, that even if you wind up owing nothing to the US after having taken all the deductions available to you, you are still required to file a US expat tax return
> 
> US Expat Tax Considerations for Americans Working in Saudi Arabia
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Oh right the guys giving away their wealth, unlike the CONservatives Koch brothers/Walton's! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary) denied the union middleclass jobs, because he opposed the Keystone Pipeline, so HIS railroads could continue bringing the oil from Canada to the gulf?  Bet you didn't know that.  Did you know that Bill Gates, is wanting cheap labor from India because Americans are paid too much for the same work?  Oh you didn't know that.  The liberals always talk about their "COMPASSION", but as long as the liberal elites are in for the fight, they can screw over America, and their low information useful idiots, just adore them.  Oh well, stupid is as stupid votes, and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet has made more billions since Obama took office, who has now got more people in poverty in the history of America.  Slap yourselves on the back, you "HAVE" fundamentally transformed America, into the 3rd world nation, you love so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Buffet's 'secretary' makes over $200K (based on the percentage in taxes Buffet claims his secretary pays).
Click to expand...


JUST because you are a low informed right winger, don't make shit up dumbass!


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet those people kinda worked hard to get where they did, that they didn't sit back and bitch and moan how unfair the world was to them.  They didn't look for a government handout, but put money into retirement accounts that gave them a tax haven from the federal government that was stealing from them just so they could give that money to someone else sitting in their parents home, typing on computers , who end up voting dumbocrat.  So I guess when these people were taxed when they earned their money, taxed when they spent their money, they should be taxed again, because they were smart enough to provide for their future?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you liberals do have a hard on for the Koch brothers, but why don't you have an issue with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and their billions and millions?  Because when liberals use the government to make their billions, you are okay with it, but when conservatives use supply side economics, then they must be evil.  You tards are dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> View attachment 50649
Click to expand...



The Kochs who've doubled their wealth under Obama?

Yeah it's HORRIBLE Buffet and Comp want the rich to pay more, like before they did pre Reaganomics?


Talk about dumber than a box of rocks


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



YOU MEAN ABE THE PROGRESSIVE THAT GOT MURDERED BY THE CONSERVATIVE SCUM?


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see
> Kept slaves
> Split the union because of slavery
> Hung free blacks and white republicans
> Declared War on American Indians put them on the trail of tears
> Separated drinking fountains and bathrooms by race
> Created internment camps for German Americans
> Created Planned Parenthood to use eugenics on those not deemed worthy for survival
> Used propaganda against the US citizens so well that it was copied by the Nazi's
> This link has more of what liberals have done to this country   Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Liberal/Progressive all starts with Socialism(A history lesson) | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...



Good little Bubba, CONfusing CONsrvatives from the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa for liberals or PROGRESSIVES? lol


----------



## kaz

thanatos144 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)
> *
> He lies!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?


----------



## Dad2three

kaz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
Click to expand...



Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!



The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?

The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians? 

"The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."


"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson


----------



## danielpalos

why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?

In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.



*why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*

The wealthiest do pay the most.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Just think of the progressive utopia there could be if the proletariat could confiscate 80% of the wealth of the rich.

Those cluless beggars would be crying for the rest within a year...


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
Click to expand...

Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.


----------



## HenryBHough

Nice thing about wealth.

With the exception of real estate it is portable.


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Just think of the progressive utopia there could be if the proletariat could confiscate 80% of the wealth of the rich.
> 
> Those cluless beggars would be crying for the rest within a year...




Just double the effective tax of the top 1% (23% to 46%) and the deficit disappears Bubba. IT'S A MATH THING THAT CONFUSES THE RIGHT WINGERS


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
Click to expand...


YET the top 1% has tripled their "share" of income since 1980 and their tax burden hasn't been this low since 1932. Weird right?


----------



## Dad2three

HenryBHough said:


> Nice thing about wealth.
> 
> With the exception of real estate it is portable.




*PLEASE pull a Galt.* You understand US taxes people giving up citizenship right?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
Click to expand...

so, why so much _infidel_-ism, _protestant_-ism, and _renegade_-ism, to progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?


----------



## danielpalos

LogikAndReazon said:


> Just think of the progressive utopia there could be if the proletariat could confiscate 80% of the wealth of the rich.
> 
> Those cluless beggars would be crying for the rest within a year...


some on the left believe in management by objective.  why not merely promote the general welfare by simply solving, simple poverty?


----------



## danielpalos

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
Click to expand...

In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy simply for the sake of pride of Capital ownership.


----------



## danielpalos

Dad2three said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET the top 1% has tripled their "share" of income since 1980 and their tax burden hasn't been this low since 1932. Weird right?
Click to expand...

trickle down

a social bailout of the wealthiest, 

and letting the rest, trickle down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why so much _infidel_-ism, _protestant_-ism, and _renegade_-ism, to progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
Click to expand...


In English?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET the top 1% has tripled their "share" of income since 1980 and their tax burden hasn't been this low since 1932. Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trickle down
> 
> a social bailout of the wealthiest,
> 
> and letting the rest, trickle down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Obamanomics hasn't helped the poor and middle class.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET the top 1% has tripled their "share" of income since 1980 and their tax burden hasn't been this low since 1932. Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trickle down
> 
> a social bailout of the wealthiest,
> 
> and letting the rest, trickle down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obamanomics hasn't helped the poor and middle class.
Click to expand...

Well they haven't had to pay any federal income taxes in 15years.  So that's something.  Well it's something if you want everyone else to pull your weight.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why so much _infidel_-ism, _protestant_-ism, and _renegade_-ism, to progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In English?
Click to expand...

here is the string of words that contains, the clue and the Cause:

progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why so much _infidel_-ism, _protestant_-ism, and _renegade_-ism, to progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here is the string of words that contains, the clue and the Cause:
> 
> progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
Click to expand...


If you could ask a question that actually makes sense now?


----------



## Dad2three

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> 
> 
> Never did understand how people could be so petty, so dumb, so foolish, so childish,... so as to be bitching and moaning that the people who are paying hundreds of times more in taxes than they are, are not paying enough in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YET the top 1% has tripled their "share" of income since 1980 and their tax burden hasn't been this low since 1932. Weird right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trickle down
> 
> a social bailout of the wealthiest,
> 
> and letting the rest, trickle down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obamanomics hasn't helped the poor and middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well they haven't had to pay any federal income taxes in 15years.  So that's something.  Well it's something if you want everyone else to pull your weight.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's focus on that 26% of ALL taxes, fed income taxes, most of who already paid INCOME tax (seniors) or will (college age/low wage entry)


----------



## danielpalos

why is that?  class envy because the least wealthy don't have lobby their legislator for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> In the opinion of some on the left for purely social purposes; we should have the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *why shouldn't the wealthiest pay the most under Any form of Capitalism?*
> 
> The wealthiest do pay the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why so much _infidel_-ism, _protestant_-ism, and _renegade_-ism, to progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here is the string of words that contains, the clue and the Cause:
> 
> progressive Taxation under Any form of Capitalism, my good capitalists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could ask a question that actually makes sense now?
Click to expand...

no clue and no Cause; i got it.


----------



## thanatos144

kaz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buffett and the leftists love the term his "secretary."  It implies a woman who makes $35k and rushes home to cook her poor family a meal and take the kids to soccer practice.
> 
> Actually, he, is an evil one percenter.  Does it really matter comparing the taxes of one one percenter to another?
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Those were the founders not libertarians. ... now try to answer without the lie 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
Click to expand...

That was all democrats.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
Click to expand...

Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



*The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights*


*The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement*. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in _National Review_ is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.



The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights



*CONservatives aren't racist. They just believe that 90% of African Americans are too damn stupid to recognize and vote for their own best interests.*


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.

1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'

Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."

*The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*

What Reagan meant by "states' rights."


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


*The reality is that the three (3) largest minority groups in America demonstrated, in November, 2012, how they felt about the two major parties in this country: *

Over 90% of African-American voters chose the Democratic Party presidential candidate, *NOT the Republican Party presidential candidate. *

70% of Hispanic-American voters chose the Democratic Party presidential candidate, *NOT the Republican Party presidential candidate. *

73% of Asian-American voters chose the Democratic Party presidential candidate, *NOT the Republican Party presidential candidate. *

Oops.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
Click to expand...

I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight


> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.


 When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)


> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.


 Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Warren Buffett Says Hillary ‘Absolutely’ Still Has His Vote


> Warren Buffett Says Hillary ‘Absolutely’ Still Has His Vote


 Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Keystone Pipeline


> "I don’t think we need to have a pipeline bringing very dirty oil, exploiting the tar sands in western Canada, across our border," she told the Des Moines Register's editorial board.


 So we can see when a liberal elite special interest group panders to the liberal politician, then that politician will give back to that special interest.  Hillary says she doesn't want a pipeline bringing very dirty oil across our border but notice she says nothing about Warrens railroad oil cars bringing that same oil across?  So Warren will make even more billions, Hillary will get her campaign funds, and the dumbass union workers will continue to be screwed.  Elections have consequences.  Dumbasses vote dumbocrat.


----------



## kaz

thanatos144 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Buffet isn't just a one percent , but more closer to the .001%'er.  He of all people pressured B.O.(Barak Hussein) not to allow the Keystone pipeline, which would of put 1000's of union middleclass people to work, because that pipeline would of cut into the profits of Buffet's railroads that carry the same oil from Canada to the Gulf.  So Warren made 100's of millions of dollars more and those poor shlobs who voted for Obama are still out of job.  Thanks to the liberal compassion who had to greedily make more.  Dumbasses who vote liberal , deserve all the misery that liberals FORCE upon them.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were the founders not libertarians. ... now try to answer without the lie
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


And we're different how?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

kaz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good right wing talking points devoid of truth Bubs
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The State Department, you mentioned the State Department, says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the U.S." * Girling conceded that actual operating jobs top out at 50*
> 
> 
> *TransCanada CEO says 42,000 Keystone XL pipeline jobs are 'ongoing, enduring'*
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? These are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans have been promising?* The very thought that this country may risk certain environmental disaster to create fewer jobs over TWO years than it needs every TWO weeks just to keep up with population growth, is unfathomable. *Tell me we’re not being ruled by people *THAT *dumb!
> 
> 
> *CEO of TransCanada Concedes just 50 permanent jobs from Keystone XL Pipeline*
> 
> 
> * Why Conservatives Love Stupid People. *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were the founders not libertarians. ... now try to answer without the lie
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we're different how?
Click to expand...

Liberals are different because they have to have a government take care of themselves from cradle to grave, because they are TOO STUPID to make something of themselves while ruining America.  Those who founded this country didn't have government hand outs, but with hard work, they were able to feed for their families from cradle to grave, and make America great.


----------



## kaz

andaronjim said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part right, I don't respect you, Republican
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were the founders not libertarians. ... now try to answer without the lie
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we're different how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are different because they have to have a government take care of themselves from cradle to grave, because they are TOO STUPID to make something of themselves while ruining America.  Those who founded this country didn't have government hand outs, but with hard work, they were able to feed for their families from cradle to grave, and make America great.
Click to expand...


Democrats do seem to desire killing the goose that laid the golden egg, don't they?


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> 
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act? 
Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten


> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.


 Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, the closest you Klowns can CLAIM is PERHAPS the Articles of CONfederation, you know that "states rights" thing, whereas the CONSTITUTION IS THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T THING!
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who gave US the STRONG PROTECTIONIST POLICY OVER Adam Smith's "free hand" were libertarians?
> 
> The guys who mandated OWNING a firearm were libertarians? The guys who mandated health insurance and gave US socialized medicine were libertarians?
> 
> "The power of all corporations ought to be limited," wrote James Madison, the framer whose influence echoes most resoundingly in the Constitution, as "the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
> 
> 
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations,"  TJefferson
> 
> 
> 
> That was all democrats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
Click to expand...



LBJ? Oh right the guy who single handily got the CRA of 1964 through the Senate?


*It begins in 1957, with Johnson as Senate majority leader, engineering passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, a feat generally regarded as impossible until he did it.*

*"To see Lyndon Johnson get that bill through, almost vote by vote," said Pultizer Prize–winning LBJ biographer Robert Caro, "is to see not only legislative power but legislative genius."*

One key to Johnson's success was that he managed to link two completely unrelated issues: civil rights and dam construction in Hells Canyon in the Sawtooth Mountains of America's far northwest.
Summer 2004: Civil Rights Act

LBJ VOTED AGAINST IT HUH? lol


*Wingnutters know history interferes with their mythology. So they deny it and blindly mouth their mythology instead.*


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
Click to expand...



WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

kaz said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has libertarians ever done for the country other then get high and deplete the cheetoes surplus? A republican ended slavery in this country. .... th at s just one thing they have done .... what has your party done?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides founding the country and writing the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were the founders not libertarians. ... now try to answer without the lie
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we're different how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are different because they have to have a government take care of themselves from cradle to grave, because they are TOO STUPID to make something of themselves while ruining America.  Those who founded this country didn't have government hand outs, but with hard work, they were able to feed for their families from cradle to grave, and make America great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats do seem to desire killing the goose that laid the golden egg, don't they?
Click to expand...

Only if it isn't them bleeding out those eggs, as Warren Buffet stated "I pay less taxes than his secretary".  Of course if Buffet was a true philanthropist he would contribute more on his tax returns to help out America, but as the CHUMP he is, he as attorneys finding ways to scam US so we pay more.   Barron's: Buffett Avoids Taxes, But Obama Still Loves Him


> Buffett, chairman and CEO of the Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate, does not publicize his tax returns. But for the tax year 2010, he reportedly paid $6.9 million on taxable income of $39.8 million.
> 
> For many years, he boasted his tax rate was lower than his secretary’s, largely due to the fact he took so little income from Berkshire.
> 
> "What is astounding about those numbers is not the 17.3 percent tax rate, but that Buffett's $39.8 million of taxable income is only about 0.05 percent of his reported net worth," Morris Propp observes in an article for Barron's.


  Do as they say, not as they do.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, Sorry, they were LIBERALS who fought the CONservatives (loyalists/Torries)
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats. The oldest hate group in the USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
Click to expand...

Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.'
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By comparison, take the 1960 and 1964 elections, for example. In 1960 between JFK and Nixon? Nixon's the bigot with 'The Southern Strategy' playing to the Jim Crow of States Rights, and he was VP since 1952.
> 
> 1964, Goldwater (the furthest right the GOP had known to date) vs the guy that drove the Civil Rights Act?? The night it passed, LBJ, 'in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as melancholy, Johnson predicted that we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."'
> 
> Reagan continued Nixon's Southern Strategy. His '1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers,' reinforcing his support of John C Calhoun's 1828 States Rights - as the fed govt progresses socially, "we'll maintain our slavery and segregation as we see fit here locally, within our state boundaries. Back off."
> 
> *The migration of racists predominantly going from Dem to GOP started in 1948 and completed in 1965.*
> 
> What Reagan meant by "states' rights."
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight
> 
> 
> 
> Saturday delivered a fiery defense of his administration before the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual Phoenix Awards gala, calling on black lawmakers who have criticized him to “quit complaining,” and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)
> 
> 
> 
> Smith went on CNN to explain why he believes blacks should vote GOP for at least one election. He’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have taken the African American vote for granted. Check out what Stephen has to say below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.
Click to expand...



YET it was majority of Dems who got the  1957, 1960 and 1964   CRA's passed, where the SOUTHERNERS from BOTH parties who opposed them. Go figure

Your NOT acknowledging the LIE ON LBJ in 1957 is noted Bubba

Yep, it was PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS GETTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, CONSERVATIVES TO THIS DAY FIGHT IT


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that you didn't mention the voting rights act of 1957 , where the senate majority leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, voted against the act presented by Dwight David Eisenhower.  Those white southern racist DEMOCRATS didn't want people of color to be equal.  Obama tells Black Caucus 'stop complaining' and fight  When a black person steps away from the plantation, then the racist democrats call the intelligent people of color, OREOS, Uncle Toms, or not of the hood.  Democrats have been treating blacks like slaves, and more are moving away from the democrats. Stephen A. Smith Says Blacks Should Vote Republican (Guess Why Video)  Even with the first 1/2 white president in office, people of color are moving away, and this is why the Dictator is flooding America with hordes of illegals, or future democrat voters.   Some people are the dumbest people on the planet, and they vote Dumbocrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET it was majority of Dems who got the  1957, 1960 and 1964   CRA's passed, where the SOUTHERNERS from BOTH parties who opposed them. Go figure
> 
> Your NOT acknowledging the LIE ON LBJ in 1957 is noted Bubba
> 
> Yep, it was PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS GETTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, CONSERVATIVES TO THIS DAY FIGHT IT
Click to expand...

 Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?


> Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.
> 
> “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”


You are a retard.  Take a look at percentages, moron(I again apologize for putting liberals at the same intelligence of morons) you just cant educate STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE RACISTS.  Maybe a firehose needs to be turned on you.


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
> 
> 
> 
> When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guardian
> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET it was majority of Dems who got the  1957, 1960 and 1964   CRA's passed, where the SOUTHERNERS from BOTH parties who opposed them. Go figure
> 
> Your NOT acknowledging the LIE ON LBJ in 1957 is noted Bubba
> 
> Yep, it was PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS GETTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, CONSERVATIVES TO THIS DAY FIGHT IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.
> 
> “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a retard.  Take a look at percentages, moron(I again apologize for putting liberals at the same intelligence of morons) you just cant educate STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE RACISTS.  Maybe a firehose needs to be turned on you.
Click to expand...


Percentages? You mean like the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa (from BOTH parties)  that fight for the rebel flag, today's GOP base that voted against it??


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noticed how he sidestepped the issue of the 1957 civil rights act?
> Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten  Still trying to change history?  When you honor "LUCIFER" in rules for radicals, the ends justify the means, even if it means lying your ass off, as liberal typically do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET it was majority of Dems who got the  1957, 1960 and 1964   CRA's passed, where the SOUTHERNERS from BOTH parties who opposed them. Go figure
> 
> Your NOT acknowledging the LIE ON LBJ in 1957 is noted Bubba
> 
> Yep, it was PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS GETTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, CONSERVATIVES TO THIS DAY FIGHT IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.
> 
> “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a retard.  Take a look at percentages, moron(I again apologize for putting liberals at the same intelligence of morons) you just cant educate STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE RACISTS.  Maybe a firehose needs to be turned on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Percentages? You mean like the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa (from BOTH parties)  that fight for the rebel flag, today's GOP base that voted against it??
Click to expand...

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor


> A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.
> 
> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, _The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness._
> 
> "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
> 
> In other words, _it's not their fault._ (That statement sounds suspiciously liberal to me.)


 I have tried to have a reasonable dialogue, but you cant have one with insane people.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.

No matter the cost comrades !


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE LBJ GOT IT PASSED, AND AGAIN, THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa voted against it?? You know todays GOP base?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you friggin moron(I apologize to morons for comparing the intelligence of a liberal to you) you cant change history, you can try to rewrite it, but as long as I am around, I will constantly PROVE you wrong, no matter what cartoons you put up.  The WHITE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS,  LBJ, ROBERT BYRD, Eugene Bull Conner, and many others LIBERAL, didn't want to associate with black people, because they thought blacks were beneath them.  They used dogs and firehoses , but it took Republicans and the National Guard to allow those people to pass.  Such dumbasses who vote Dumbocrat, for they are the TRUE RACISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YET it was majority of Dems who got the  1957, 1960 and 1964   CRA's passed, where the SOUTHERNERS from BOTH parties who opposed them. Go figure
> 
> Your NOT acknowledging the LIE ON LBJ in 1957 is noted Bubba
> 
> Yep, it was PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS GETTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, CONSERVATIVES TO THIS DAY FIGHT IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.
> 
> “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a retard.  Take a look at percentages, moron(I again apologize for putting liberals at the same intelligence of morons) you just cant educate STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE RACISTS.  Maybe a firehose needs to be turned on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Percentages? You mean like the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa (from BOTH parties)  that fight for the rebel flag, today's GOP base that voted against it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor
> 
> 
> 
> A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.
> 
> "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, _The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness._
> 
> "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
> 
> In other words, _it's not their fault._ (That statement sounds suspiciously liberal to me.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have tried to have a reasonable dialogue, but you cant have one with insane people.
Click to expand...



Dr. Lyle Rossiter,
*
In a nutshell, the book's thesis is, 'My political views are so obviously correct that anyone who doesn't accept them just has to be nuts.'* It presupposes the truth of a right-wing political outlook and then tries to plumb the reasons why other people do not accept this truth, the conclusion being that they have to be in massive denial. He chastises liberals for being "uncivil, overly sure of their correctness, and willfully ignorant of facts that contradict their worldview."


Lyle Rossiter - RationalWiki


*Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds*

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

*Six Telling Studies Show How Conservative And Liberal Minds Are Wired Differently*

*6. Conservatives are more easily disgusted:*

*5. More activity in brain of liberals when presented with conflict:*

*4. Studies indicate right-wingers are less intelligent:*


*3. Conservatives have a “negativity bias”:

2. Conservatives don’t get the joke:

1. Conservatives have larger “fear centers” in their brain: 


Six Telling Studies Show How Conservative And Liberal Minds Are Wired Differently


Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative

Ten years ago, it was wildly controversial to talk about psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Today, it's becoming hard not to.


Scientists are beginning to figure out why conservatives are…conservative

I'm a progressive who says go fuk yourself teatard! 


*


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !




Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

LogikAndReazon said:


> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !



Yes! Forward, to our glorious socialist future!!!


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !




Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US? 


LogikAndReazon said:


> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol




Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
Click to expand...

You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
Click to expand...


Because he's an ideological idiot who either doesn't get it or just doesn't care.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...


----------



## Dad2three

SAYIT said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because he's an ideological idiot who either doesn't get it or just doesn't care.
Click to expand...


More right wing projection

PLEASE however give me ONE POLICY CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history? Just one Bubs?


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...
Click to expand...

Dummy it is called economics. just because you are spoiled and lazy doesn't change reality 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy it is called economics. just because you are spoiled and lazy doesn't change reality
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Tax Increases.... For GROWTH !!!!

Lmfao


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Tax Increases.... For GROWTH !!!!
> 
> Lmfao





*FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’*

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, *Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history*, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.

Oh, and Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. On May 27, 1993, Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL) said *“[Americans] will remember who set loose this dreadful virus into the economic bloodstream of our nation.” *


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Its civil servants and bureaucrats that reallly create oppurtunity, expansion, productivity , growth and wealth....

Every sniveling little marxist understands this !    Lol


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Its civil servants and bureaucrats that reallly create oppurtunity, expansion, productivity , growth and wealth....
> 
> Every sniveling little marxist understands this !    Lol



Nah, it's tax cuts, according to the GOPers...


----------



## danielpalos

Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Equality of outcomes for all Americanistas !!!!!!


----------



## Dad2three

LogikAndReazon said:


> Equality of outcomes for all Americanistas !!!!!!


----------



## LogikAndReazon

MARXISTS , occutards, parasites, and "workers" of the world...  Unite !!!!


----------



## Dad2three




----------



## danielpalos

Capitalism can't handle Nature on it its own, without the socialism of Nurture.


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> More taxes are needed for more social justice programs, and more govt employees to run, regulate and decide who gets the handouts.
> 
> No matter the cost comrades !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food for all !!!!   Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy it is called economics. just because you are spoiled and lazy doesn't change reality
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So you posts pictures of a comedian and a college professor nether which has a real job and a cartoon and that is suppose to prove me wrong?  You wear velcro shoes don't you?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.


You hate freedom don't you?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.
> 
> 
> 
> You hate freedom don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who's freedom are you referring to?  The "one percent" or the "ninety-nine" percent in our _fine_ And _glorious_ Republic.


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


>



love the pic.....who painted it and when...

I think the quote is condensed from a letter I've seen but gets the meaning.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

dcraelin said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> love the pic.....who painted it and when...
> 
> I think the quote is condensed from a letter I've seen but gets the meaning.
Click to expand...

Back in 2009 when Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were leading America, all they could do behind closed doors, was take away America's right to purchase or not purchase health insurance. When liberals get in charge, those same liberals are the one devouring everything that man has created, eventually leaving empty husks of burned out cities, bankrupt states, or even collapsing countries.  So much for all that Hope and Change, the libtards voted for.  Yes, the Rich definitely got richer and the most poor ever in the history of America.  Jimmy Carter thanks Obama for all of the 1st Obama has done.  Politically incorrect news, politics 2015


> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015
> 
> 
> Posted: Friday, September 11, 2015 6:13 pm | _ Updated: 6:14 pm, Fri Sep 11, 2015. _
> 
> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015 Lee Armstrong Yucca Valley Hi-Desert Star |  15 comments
> 
> •   Jimmy Carter lives long enough to see he is no longer the worst president ever.
> 
> •   Hillary Clinton asks Martha Stewart how to survive in prison.
> 
> •   Donald Trump asks Jeb Bush for Spanish lessons.
> 
> •   Obama’s real birth certificate to be released in 2017.
> 
> •   Joe Biden asks, if he’s president, can he still ride the trains.
> 
> •   Al Sharton takes the fifth on is he really a preacher or hairdresser.
> 
> •   Jeb Bush asks wife (in Spanish) what happened?
> 
> •   Black Lives Matter protesters learn to use spell-check.
> 
> •   Ruth Ginsburg sleeps through the 2016 elections.


----------



## dcraelin

andaronjim said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> love the pic.....who painted it and when...
> 
> I think the quote is condensed from a letter I've seen but gets the meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back in 2009 when Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were leading America, all they could do behind closed doors, was take away America's right to purchase or not purchase health insurance. When liberals get in charge, those same liberals are the one devouring everything that man has created, eventually leaving empty husks of burned out cities, bankrupt states, or even collapsing countries.  So much for all that Hope and Change, the libtards voted for.  Yes, the Rich definitely got richer and the most poor ever in the history of America.  Jimmy Carter thanks Obama for all of the 1st Obama has done.  Politically incorrect news, politics 2015
> 
> 
> 
> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015
> 
> 
> Posted: Friday, September 11, 2015 6:13 pm | _ Updated: 6:14 pm, Fri Sep 11, 2015. _
> 
> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015 Lee Armstrong Yucca Valley Hi-Desert Star |  15 comments
> 
> •   Jimmy Carter lives long enough to see he is no longer the worst president ever.
> 
> •   Hillary Clinton asks Martha Stewart how to survive in prison.
> 
> •   Donald Trump asks Jeb Bush for Spanish lessons.
> 
> •   Obama’s real birth certificate to be released in 2017.
> 
> •   Joe Biden asks, if he’s president, can he still ride the trains.
> 
> •   Al Sharton takes the fifth on is he really a preacher or hairdresser.
> 
> •   Jeb Bush asks wife (in Spanish) what happened?
> 
> •   Black Lives Matter protesters learn to use spell-check.
> 
> •   Ruth Ginsburg sleeps through the 2016 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I disagreed with the "affordable" health care act, but the flaws in it weren't "liberal"  per se, they were, in part, the result of seeking compromise with the republicans.  

Green party candidate Jill Stein opposed and still does oppose Obama/Romney care.  She just did a great interview with Travis Smiley (sp?)    people should check out.


----------



## thanatos144

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.
> 
> 
> 
> You hate freedom don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's freedom are you referring to?  The "one percent" or the "ninety-nine" percent in our _fine_ And _glorious_ Republic.
Click to expand...

Look at you use class warfare likens good little communist.  Son that one percent pays for your stupid ass .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just to fund the programs the GOP Gov't gave US?
> Sorry Bubba, it was "free wars, free Medicare expansion and free tax cuts"
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy it is called economics. just because you are spoiled and lazy doesn't change reality
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you posts pictures of a comedian and a college professor nether which has a real job and a cartoon and that is suppose to prove me wrong?  You wear velcro shoes don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yep, keep "believing": in supply side crap that's been empirically proven a failure, every time it is tried

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics



*History Proves the Supply-Siders Wrong*

The best place to start this empirical inquiry is to look at what actually happens when top tax rates change. Do growth and employment shoot up when high earners get a tax cut? Does the economy tumble when their taxes rise?

At first glance, the historical record seems to offer little to support the supply-side story.




...A recent paper by the *nonpartisan Congressional Research Service *also found no correlation during the postwar years between economic growth and the top tax rates on normal income and capital gains. Moreover, it found no discernible relationship between top tax rates and either investment or private savings, stating that the* “reduction in the top statutory tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.”*

Burying Supply-Side Once and for All


----------



## Dad2three

andaronjim said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> love the pic.....who painted it and when...
> 
> I think the quote is condensed from a letter I've seen but gets the meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back in 2009 when Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were leading America, all they could do behind closed doors, was take away America's right to purchase or not purchase health insurance. When liberals get in charge, those same liberals are the one devouring everything that man has created, eventually leaving empty husks of burned out cities, bankrupt states, or even collapsing countries.  So much for all that Hope and Change, the libtards voted for.  Yes, the Rich definitely got richer and the most poor ever in the history of America.  Jimmy Carter thanks Obama for all of the 1st Obama has done.  Politically incorrect news, politics 2015
> 
> 
> 
> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015
> 
> 
> Posted: Friday, September 11, 2015 6:13 pm | _ Updated: 6:14 pm, Fri Sep 11, 2015. _
> 
> Politically incorrect news, politics 2015 Lee Armstrong Yucca Valley Hi-Desert Star |  15 comments
> 
> •   Jimmy Carter lives long enough to see he is no longer the worst president ever.
> 
> •   Hillary Clinton asks Martha Stewart how to survive in prison.
> 
> •   Donald Trump asks Jeb Bush for Spanish lessons.
> 
> •   Obama’s real birth certificate to be released in 2017.
> 
> •   Joe Biden asks, if he’s president, can he still ride the trains.
> 
> •   Al Sharton takes the fifth on is he really a preacher or hairdresser.
> 
> •   Jeb Bush asks wife (in Spanish) what happened?
> 
> •   Black Lives Matter protesters learn to use spell-check.
> 
> •   Ruth Ginsburg sleeps through the 2016 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



ACA WAS ROMNEYCARE, A GOP IDEA DUMMY

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has noted that the final Democratic proposals have contained multiple GOP planks. To mention just a few:




Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do
Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower healthcare costs 
End junk lawsuits
Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines
Maybe most disturbing to liberal Democrats, the White House didn’t include the public option in the outline of the strong healthcare reform compromise the president wants to see.

Fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform - Salon.com


AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES AND THE US ON THE EDGE OF THE EARTH, YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT OBAMA WHO HAS SEEM 12+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM? LOL


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.
> 
> 
> 
> You hate freedom don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's freedom are you referring to?  The "one percent" or the "ninety-nine" percent in our _fine_ And _glorious_ Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at you use class warfare likens good little communist.  Son that one percent pays for your stupid ass .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Why is it ONLY class warfare when the 99% fight back dummy?


----------



## danielpalos

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's end the capital gains distinction whenever the private sector reports unfilled labor positions for more than one quarter.
> 
> 
> 
> You hate freedom don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's freedom are you referring to?  The "one percent" or the "ninety-nine" percent in our _fine_ And _glorious_ Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at you use class warfare likens good little communist.  Son that one percent pays for your stupid ass .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Look at you use class warfare like a good little capitalist; the wealthiest only pay taxes if there is no capital Contract.

some on the left like to merely goad the wealthiest into insisting their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ solutions money can buy, under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a spoiled brat.... why do you want your kids to live a worse life then yours?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean thanks to 30+ years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics? True...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dummy it is called economics. just because you are spoiled and lazy doesn't change reality
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you posts pictures of a comedian and a college professor nether which has a real job and a cartoon and that is suppose to prove me wrong?  You wear velcro shoes don't you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, keep "believing": in supply side crap that's been empirically proven a failure, every time it is tried
> 
> The Failure of Supply-Side Economics
> 
> 
> 
> *History Proves the Supply-Siders Wrong*
> 
> The best place to start this empirical inquiry is to look at what actually happens when top tax rates change. Do growth and employment shoot up when high earners get a tax cut? Does the economy tumble when their taxes rise?
> 
> At first glance, the historical record seems to offer little to support the supply-side story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...A recent paper by the *nonpartisan Congressional Research Service *also found no correlation during the postwar years between economic growth and the top tax rates on normal income and capital gains. Moreover, it found no discernible relationship between top tax rates and either investment or private savings, stating that the* “reduction in the top statutory tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.”*
> 
> Burying Supply-Side Once and for All
Click to expand...

Hey dipshit, who has been the PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A. for the past 6 3/4 years?  Dumbasses believe that Obummer was going to redistribute the wealth, to their sorry asses, yet it seems that the money ended up in the hands of liberal elite special interest groups, like Solyndra(Bankrupt) GM(50 billion of which 5 billion has been repaid, they still pay no taxes) which has ignition troubles, and other GREEN energy programs that survive because of the TAX on fossil fuels.  Yep, LIBERAL CRONIE CAPITALISM, works well for the liberal elites, and the poor shlobs get to eat government cheese and hamburger helper while Obama and Chinese president will be eating lamb and lobster.  Elections have consequences , and you liberals deserve all the MISERY that this president has FORCED upon you.  Dumbasses vote Dumbocrat.
China State Dinner Menu: Obama Will Serve Xi Jinping Lobster


> A planned dinner Friday between United States President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinpin will feature a menu of American cuisine with a hint of Chinese influence and flavors. Guests at the meal will dine on wild mushroom soup, Maine lobster and Colorado lamb, according to the Associated Press.


----------



## dcraelin

Dad2three said:


>



actually this should be experience declares not demands


----------



## usmbguest5318

MathewSmith said:


> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more



Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.


----------



## Clementine

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.




Tell it to the wealthy libs who take advantage of every tax break.   Tell it to Al Sharpton who owes millions in taxes.   Dems are the most selfish of all.   They are only generous with other people's money.   Studies proved that Republicans gave more to charity.

High taxes on middle class just prevent them from becoming wealthy.   And wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.    Libs won't be happy till they have their hands on all the money so they can decide how to spend it.

It's government that needs to reign in spending.   They constantly create more bureaucrats that gobble up money.    They redistribute wealth and encourage dependency on government, which constantly increases the amount they must steal from tax payers.

I am sick of people making it sound like people have no right to earn a lot of money.   The left is obsessed.

Reduce spending in government.    Stop insane regulations designed to kill the smaller businesses so more middle class jobs can return.   Quit sending billions each year to hostile countries.   Stop spending billions every year on illegal aliens and refugees.   Let other countries find solutions instead of expecting us to borrow money to fix everyone else's problems.

Quit with the class warfare.  

Why don't you talk to Pelosi, Meryl Streep and others with millions and talk them into writing checks to government or giving millions for free abortion or other things they demand.   Why can't they back up their rhetoric by using their own money to pay for their ideas instead of expecting politicians to reach deeper into our pockets?


----------



## Claudette

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



The rich already pay about 60% of Fed taxes dumbass. If not for those "rich" folks the middle class would be paying that 60%.

You, however, can make a contribution to the Treasury Department any time you please.

Try not to be more of a moron than you already are idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
Click to expand...

do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?

Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to the wealthy libs who take advantage of every tax break.   Tell it to Al Sharpton who owes millions in taxes.   Dems are the most selfish of all.   They are only generous with other people's money.   Studies proved that Republicans gave more to charity.
> 
> High taxes on middle class just prevent them from becoming wealthy.   And wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.    Libs won't be happy till they have their hands on all the money so they can decide how to spend it.
> 
> It's government that needs to reign in spending.   They constantly create more bureaucrats that gobble up money.    They redistribute wealth and encourage dependency on government, which constantly increases the amount they must steal from tax payers.
> 
> I am sick of people making it sound like people have no right to earn a lot of money.   The left is obsessed.
> 
> Reduce spending in government.    Stop insane regulations designed to kill the smaller businesses so more middle class jobs can return.   Quit sending billions each year to hostile countries.   Stop spending billions every year on illegal aliens and refugees.   Let other countries find solutions instead of expecting us to borrow money to fix everyone else's problems.
> 
> Quit with the class warfare.
> 
> Why don't you talk to Pelosi, Meryl Streep and others with millions and talk them into writing checks to government or giving millions for free abortion or other things they demand.   Why can't they back up their rhetoric by using their own money to pay for their ideas instead of expecting politicians to reach deeper into our pockets?
Click to expand...

Our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; are for the poor not the rich.


----------



## usmbguest5318

Clementine said:


> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.



Who on the left that matters has made that claim?


----------



## usmbguest5318

Xelor said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?



I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.




danielpalos said:


> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.



Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
Click to expand...


Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.


----------



## Slyhunter

Xelor said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
Click to expand...

They should pay until they aren't wealthy any more.


----------



## percysunshine

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



.
If you work on the creativity part, you could write a successful Stephen King novel.


----------



## danielpalos

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


equality is a social concept not a Capital concept.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
Click to expand...

Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
Click to expand...


Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves. 

Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.


----------



## francoHFW

Xelor said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
Click to expand...

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.


----------



## usmbguest5318

francoHFW said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
Click to expand...








No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.











What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:  

"*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"






Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.


----------



## francoHFW

Xelor said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
Click to expand...

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:








As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.


----------



## jc456

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


why?


----------



## jc456

Jantje_Smit said:


> Of course they should, but they won't
> 
> Because those same rich are the ones who are buying the politicians to get even more tax cuts so they can create jobs....
> 
> But you already know that


why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Click to expand...

*
with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*

Sure thing, bud.


----------



## regent

If we could see Trump's tax return maybe we could make a better decision.


----------



## easyt65

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


'Tax them 'cause they got more'

What a wonderful, yet completely un-fair' Liberal philosophy.

A great reason to end the IRS as we know it and institute a FAIR or FLAT Tax.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
Click to expand...

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
> www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
> Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
> Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
> www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
> Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...
Click to expand...


First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

FYI, both your links are dead.


----------



## jc456

regent said:


> If we could see Trump's tax return maybe we could make a better decision.


about?


----------



## Deleted member 61768

A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?


----------



## usmbguest5318

francoHFW said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Click to expand...




francoHFW said:


> Your second table proves my point lol.



Do you truly not see that even my second chart subdivides the top quintile into smaller groups?  If you reconstruct the top quintile to determine its total tax rate as a percentage of income, you'll find that rate is 32.725%.  That is not the same as the next three quintiles pay.  That was your assertion, not mine.  I'm merely showing you that you were wrong.

Reminding you of what you wrote:



francoHFW said:


> Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.


Now tell me please whether 15.025% or 16.05% for the top quintile as depicted in the second chart I presented is the same as the rates shown there for the remaining three of the top four quintiles.

Even using the chart you provided from _The Washington Post_ , one sees that the top quintile is again broken into four subdivisions.  As before, one doesn't really need to do any math to see the invalidity of your claim.  You claimed the top four quintiles pay at the same rate; however, looking at the rate captions of the bottom three quintiles, one sees they are not similar with regard to federal taxes, so there's no need to re-aggregate the segments of the top quintile.  The figures for state taxes appear somewhat closer, but doing the math, one finds that for state taxes the top quintile's rate is 9.875%, which is not 11-anything-percent or 12-something-percent.

BTW, I think you just tossed an article at me rather than reading it carefully.  The Washington Post chart you shared is nothing more than a graphic representation of the second chart I provided.  You'd have known that had you read the article and linked content. 

Also, here's the chart you didn't present from the article  you did link.  Look carefully at it....And read your own cited article while you're at it.


----------



## usmbguest5318

Paparock said:


> A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?



If that isn't the question for which the OP wanted an answer, by what contrivance would the question you propose above be a _better _question?  It seems to me your proposed question would be a pointless one to ask if opinions about whether "the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA" is not for what the OP seeks.

Where do you, people in general perhaps, "get off" telling someone what you have above?  Is the hubris it takes to do so, _and _move to say so, measurable?  If so, how much does it take?


----------



## Slyhunter

Xelor said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that isn't the question for which the OP wanted an answer, by what contrivance would the question you propose above be a _better _question?  It seems to me your proposed question would be a pointless one to ask if opinions about whether "the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA" is not for what the OP seeks.
> 
> Where do you, people in general perhaps, "get off" telling someone what you have above?  Is the hubris it takes to do so, _and _move to say so, measurable?  If so, how much does it take?
Click to expand...

The more you make the more you should pay. Those who get the most should pay the most.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
Click to expand...

Evidence?


----------



## francoHFW

easyt65 said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Tax them 'cause they got more'
> 
> What a wonderful, yet completely un-fair' Liberal philosophy.
> 
> A great reason to end the IRS as we know it and institute a FAIR or FLAT Tax.
Click to expand...

No, dumbass dupe, tax them more because they're basically getting all the new wealth and the rest are going to hell.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
> www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
> Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
> Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
> www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
> Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> FYI, both your links are dead.
Click to expand...

Right, dupe. And see sig PP 1.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest


----------



## francoHFW

Xelor said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you truly not see that even my second chart subdivides the top quintile into smaller groups?  If you reconstruct the top quintile to determine its total tax rate as a percentage of income, you'll find that rate is 32.725%.  That is not the same as the next three quintiles pay.  That was your assertion, not mine.  I'm merely showing you that you were wrong.
> 
> Reminding you of what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now tell me please whether 15.025% or 16.05% for the top quintile as depicted in the second chart I presented is the same as the rates shown there for the remaining three of the top four quintiles.
> 
> Even using the chart you provided from _The Washington Post_ , one sees that the top quintile is again broken into four subdivisions.  As before, one doesn't really need to do any math to see the invalidity of your claim.  You claimed the top four quintiles pay at the same rate; however, looking at the rate captions of the bottom three quintiles, one sees they are not similar with regard to federal taxes, so there's no need to re-aggregate the segments of the top quintile.  The figures for state taxes appear somewhat closer, but doing the math, one finds that for state taxes the top quintile's rate is 9.875%, which is not 11-anything-percent or 12-something-percent.
> 
> BTW, I think you just tossed an article at me rather than reading it carefully.  The Washington Post chart you shared is nothing more than a graphic representation of the second chart I provided.  You'd have known that had you read the article and linked content.
> 
> Also, here's the chart you didn't present from the article  you did link.  Look carefully at it....And read your own cited article while you're at it.
Click to expand...

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1


----------



## usmbguest5318

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.



You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....



Toddsterpatriot said:


> looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy



...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....



Toddsterpatriot said:


> the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.


When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?


----------



## usmbguest5318

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...


That's very kind of you to respond to that absurd remark.  I sure hope the member appreciates that you did.


----------



## jc456

Slyhunter said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that isn't the question for which the OP wanted an answer, by what contrivance would the question you propose above be a _better _question?  It seems to me your proposed question would be a pointless one to ask if opinions about whether "the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA" is not for what the OP seeks.
> 
> Where do you, people in general perhaps, "get off" telling someone what you have above?  Is the hubris it takes to do so, _and _move to say so, measurable?  If so, how much does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more you make the more you should pay. Those who get the most should pay the most.
Click to expand...

they do.


----------



## usmbguest5318

francoHFW said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you truly not see that even my second chart subdivides the top quintile into smaller groups?  If you reconstruct the top quintile to determine its total tax rate as a percentage of income, you'll find that rate is 32.725%.  That is not the same as the next three quintiles pay.  That was your assertion, not mine.  I'm merely showing you that you were wrong.
> 
> Reminding you of what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now tell me please whether 15.025% or 16.05% for the top quintile as depicted in the second chart I presented is the same as the rates shown there for the remaining three of the top four quintiles.
> 
> Even using the chart you provided from _The Washington Post_ , one sees that the top quintile is again broken into four subdivisions.  As before, one doesn't really need to do any math to see the invalidity of your claim.  You claimed the top four quintiles pay at the same rate; however, looking at the rate captions of the bottom three quintiles, one sees they are not similar with regard to federal taxes, so there's no need to re-aggregate the segments of the top quintile.  The figures for state taxes appear somewhat closer, but doing the math, one finds that for state taxes the top quintile's rate is 9.875%, which is not 11-anything-percent or 12-something-percent.
> 
> BTW, I think you just tossed an article at me rather than reading it carefully.  The Washington Post chart you shared is nothing more than a graphic representation of the second chart I provided.  You'd have known that had you read the article and linked content.
> 
> Also, here's the chart you didn't present from the article  you did link.  Look carefully at it....And read your own cited article while you're at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1
Click to expand...


Dude, if you want to discuss/debate the regressivity of the tax code, then say so, but stop conflating disparate aspects of and pertaining to tax, taxation, income, wealth, income inequality, etc.  Put some real rigor into your remarks.  You'll know when that happens...You will not feel that you are defending something and the nature of your posts will become merely informative.  Also, the refutations people offer will be extraneous, frivolous, and inapposite.

I suspect you and I agree on matters of taxation.  I'd be happy to say so, corroborate and amplify your accurately and precisely made claims.  I can't and won't do that when you conflate and confound your points and the subject matter itself.



francoHFW said:


> Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth



NEWS FLASH!!!
Tax rates and taxes paid are not the same things as receiving wealth.



francoHFW said:


> See sig PP1



I don't know what that means.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
> www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
> Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
> Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
> www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
> Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> FYI, both your links are dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, dupe. And see sig PP 1.
> http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Xelor said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?
Click to expand...


Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.


----------



## francoHFW

Xelor said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you truly not see that even my second chart subdivides the top quintile into smaller groups?  If you reconstruct the top quintile to determine its total tax rate as a percentage of income, you'll find that rate is 32.725%.  That is not the same as the next three quintiles pay.  That was your assertion, not mine.  I'm merely showing you that you were wrong.
> 
> Reminding you of what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now tell me please whether 15.025% or 16.05% for the top quintile as depicted in the second chart I presented is the same as the rates shown there for the remaining three of the top four quintiles.
> 
> Even using the chart you provided from _The Washington Post_ , one sees that the top quintile is again broken into four subdivisions.  As before, one doesn't really need to do any math to see the invalidity of your claim.  You claimed the top four quintiles pay at the same rate; however, looking at the rate captions of the bottom three quintiles, one sees they are not similar with regard to federal taxes, so there's no need to re-aggregate the segments of the top quintile.  The figures for state taxes appear somewhat closer, but doing the math, one finds that for state taxes the top quintile's rate is 9.875%, which is not 11-anything-percent or 12-something-percent.
> 
> BTW, I think you just tossed an article at me rather than reading it carefully.  The Washington Post chart you shared is nothing more than a graphic representation of the second chart I provided.  You'd have known that had you read the article and linked content.
> 
> Also, here's the chart you didn't present from the article  you did link.  Look carefully at it....And read your own cited article while you're at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if you want to discuss/debate the regressivity of the tax code, then say so, but stop conflating disparate aspects of and pertaining to tax, taxation, income, wealth, income inequality, etc.  Put some real rigor into your remarks.  You'll know when that happens...You will not feel that you are defending something and the nature of your posts will become merely informative.  Also, the refutations people offer will be extraneous, frivolous, and inapposite.
> 
> I suspect you and I agree on matters of taxation.  I'd be happy to say so, corroborate and amplify your accurately and precisely made claims.  I can't and won't do that when you conflate and confound your points and the subject matter itself.
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEWS FLASH!!!
> Tax rates and taxes paid are not the same things as receiving wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> See sig PP1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what that means.
Click to expand...

Probably.

See signature, paragraph 1:
*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!*


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
> www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
> Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
> Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
> www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
> Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> FYI, both your links are dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, dupe. And see sig PP 1.
> http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

GOP injustice/bs and the ruin of the nonrich and the country is all, dupe...


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.
Click to expand...

We could say the same about you, but we'd be right, dupe.


----------



## Little-Acorn

*Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?*


In general govt can do, what you can do.

Taking more from the people who earn more, is simple theft.

Whether it's govt doing it or you doing it.


----------



## keepitreal

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. *Maybe it's about time* those on the bottom *start paying their fare share for a change*


Hey Ray 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Agree...I think it's about time people pay their fare share.
Not by raising anyone's taxes but, by freeing up lost revenue.

I used to work at a salvage store.... 
discontinued, damaged, out of code, 
inventories from stores that closed...etc

I can't tell you how many customers
would use tax exemptions, issued to
the Chicago BoE, the Catholic Archdiocese,
local/neighborhood worship centers, 
fast food restaurants, day care centers...

buying shampoo, pads, make up, soda, snacks
shower curtains, picture frames..you get it

Tell me how the schools are using these items...they're not
And, I'm sure those using tax exemptions for personal use
could get fired from the BoE, or any other large organization
that has tax exempt status and distributes exemption papers
to the entire staff and work force, on a large scale, ex. BoE

That was an example of lost revenue from 2 sources
Those who are exempt from paying taxes on purchases
And, the companies that wrote off the damaged,
discontinued, expired and entire inventories, as a loss on their taxes

No one and no company, business, enterprise, etc..
should be allowed to be exempt from paying taxes
or be spared from the risks of running a business
or the consequences of mismanaging a business!

If someone loses $10,000 gambling
they can't write it off as a loss on their taxes...
so, if a business had throw away $10,000 
in expired, damaged merchandise....why is that a loss?

Separation of church and state
wasn't intended to be a means to avoid paying taxes...
even Jesus, when tested and asked, by the spies, 
sent out by the scribes and chief priests...

Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?
Jesus answered, Render therefore to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God
the things that are God's

Which brings me to...
Why the hell are charitable contributions tax write-offs?
They shouldn't be!...more lost taxable revenue

Why should link(food stamps) purchases 
be exempt from taxes...wtf,  they should pay the taxes!
Food taxes are low and they're not having to pay for the food!

Being able to write off shit for anything in conjunction with
a responsibility you took on, is ridiculous!
You wanted a house, so you bought a house
Whether or not you wanted children, you have them
Whatever the case may be... responsibility shouldn't be an exemption!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,*
> 
> Sure thing, bud.
> 
> 
> 
> The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
> www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
> Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
> Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
> www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
> Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> FYI, both your links are dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, dupe. And see sig PP 1.
> http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOP injustice/bs and the ruin of the nonrich and the country is all, dupe...
Click to expand...


8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama and things are worse than ever, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could say the same about you, but we'd be right, dupe.
Click to expand...


You could call me a liberal idiot. You liberal idiots are often confused.


----------



## xyz

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama and things are worse than ever, eh comrade?


Yeah, it's amazing what one month of Trump can do.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
Click to expand...

is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.

seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should pay until they aren't wealthy any more.
Click to expand...

is it, immoral to tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty?


----------



## danielpalos

Paparock said:


> A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?


No.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...

Should we ask, wikileaks?


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> *Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?*
> 
> In general govt can do, what you can do.
> Taking more from the people who earn more, is simple theft.
> Whether it's govt doing it or you doing it.





xyz said:


> Yeah, it's amazing what one month of Trump can do.


I've made this point many times over the years.

No one has ever refuted it yet.


----------



## usmbguest5318

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
Click to expand...


Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
Click to expand...

seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
Click to expand...


I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.

I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## usmbguest5318

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
Click to expand...


What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.   Seeing as very few people, most especially wealthy people actually pay at the marginal rate, That he wants to lower the marginal tax rates is little but window dressing.

Without even trying to get into exact number, merely knowing that about 250K Americans earn $1M or more per year in income and knowing that the marginal rate on their income is 39.6%, a quick look at some data will show you that not even most of them pay at their marginal rate.

There're other data that one can use to arrive at the same conclusion from a different direction.  Look at Table 1 at the preceding link or look at the chart below that summarizes part of it.







If you want to talk about Trump's tax proposals in terms of whether they constitute a conflict of interest, you need to look not at his marginal rate proposals, but at his specifically proposed code changes.  If you do, and are savvy enough about tax provisions, what you'll find is that his tax changes greatly benefit rich people.  Indeed, it's safe to say that there is nothing in Trump's specific code change proposals that's not good for Donald Trump.  I haven't looked to see whether his changes would yield any real benefit to average Americans (folks in the two middle column groups in the chart above).


----------



## g5000

Claudette said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich already pay about 60% of Fed taxes dumbass. If not for those "rich" folks the middle class would be paying that 60%.
> 
> You, however, can make a contribution to the Treasury Department any time you please.
> 
> Try not to be more of a moron than you already are idiot.
Click to expand...

You're talking to someone who left the forum a year and a half ago.


----------



## Chuz Life

I wish I could have as much a right to my money as the leftards here think they have to it!

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Clementine

Xelor said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
Click to expand...



It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?


----------



## usmbguest5318

Clementine said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?
Click to expand...


I don't think I can give you an empirical answer to what constitutes a "fair share" by income bracket regardless of who pays more or less taxes.


----------



## g5000

I don't care what kind of tax scheme you have (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, progressive tax, etc.), none of it means jack shit as long as we are being robbed of $1.4 trillion a year in tax expenditures which are paid for by higher tax rates and borrowing.

Tax expenditures are a massive transfer of wealth up the food chain, creating an unlevel playing field which benefits a select few.

We don't need to tax the rich more.  We need to eliminate tax expenditures and level the playing field.

Then we can LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.


----------



## usmbguest5318

Chuz Life said:


> I wish I could have as much a right to my money as the leftards here think they have to it!


Just ballparking it, I think the left only thinks about 25% or less of your income should go to the federal gov't, unless you are a high earner, in which case they want more.  Assuming  you fall in the middle somewhere, to whom have you ceded the rights to the remaining 75%

I can tell you where most of my money used to go....my kids and their "sh*t."  Two of them are on their own now, so I have more rights to more of my money.  I still have two to go.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.


----------



## Slyhunter

Clementine said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?
Click to expand...

what is the fair share of money you spend on survival. If taxes dip into that than it's too much. Those who need more of their money, as a percentage, to pay the rent should pay the least. Those who can afford million dollar weddings should pay the most.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
Click to expand...


So you are a fraud, I got it.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.
Click to expand...


That _is_ the "conflict of interest" part.

Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?

In other words, are we in Real Times of War or not.

Real times of War require real times of War, tax rates;



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.



The People, have a need to know.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
Click to expand...

practice makes perfect.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.
> 
> Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.
> 
> 
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practice makes perfect.
Click to expand...


It seems you are the perfect fraud.


----------



## danielpalos

we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practice makes perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
Click to expand...

dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have held that stance for a long time however since your reading comprehension sucks you probably couldn't figure that out.
> 
> I am for lower taxes and lower government spending. So when you learn how to read maybe one day we can exchange ideas instead of you looking like an idiot. I won't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practice makes perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
Click to expand...


I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing projection, is still, nothing but the repeal of rejection instead of a better solution at lower cost, rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> practice makes perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
Click to expand...

we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.


----------



## usmbguest5318

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That _is_ the "conflict of interest" part.
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> In other words, are we in Real Times of War or not.
> 
> Real times of War require real times of War, tax rates;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People, have a need to know.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed* via executive order, *for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?



Dude, if you are going to posit cocamamey shit, it needs to at least be shit that falls within the most basic confines of the law.  The President does not have the power to raise or lower tax rates.  That is a power of the Congress and they have not yet ceded it to the President.  The closest thing to taxing power/authority that a president has is with regard to tariffs and trade agreements.  Sure, one can call that a tax, but it's not the type of tax we're discussing here.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a fraud, I got it.
> 
> 
> 
> practice makes perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
Click to expand...


Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That _is_ the "conflict of interest" part.
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> In other words, are we in Real Times of War or not.
> 
> Real times of War require real times of War, tax rates;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People, have a need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed* via executive order, *for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if you are going to posit cocamamey shit, it needs to at least be shit that falls within the most basic confines of the law.  The President does not have the power to raise or lower tax rates.  That is a power of the Congress and they have yet ceded it to the President.  The closest thing to taxing power/authority that a president has is with regard to tariffs and trade agreements.  Sure, one can call that a tax, but it's not the type of tax we're discussing here.
Click to expand...

are we in real times of War, or not:



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> practice makes perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
Click to expand...

nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you are the perfect fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
Click to expand...


Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.


----------



## usmbguest5318

danielpalos said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
> 
> 
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That _is_ the "conflict of interest" part.
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> In other words, are we in Real Times of War or not.
> 
> Real times of War require real times of War, tax rates;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People, have a need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed* via executive order, *for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if you are going to posit cocamamey shit, it needs to at least be shit that falls within the most basic confines of the law.  The President does not have the power to raise or lower tax rates.  That is a power of the Congress and they have yet ceded it to the President.  The closest thing to taxing power/authority that a president has is with regard to tariffs and trade agreements.  Sure, one can call that a tax, but it's not the type of tax we're discussing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are we in real times of War, or not:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I cannot answer the question because "real times" and "war times" are not mutually exclusive things.  Moreover, though "war time" is at least definable in terms of whether the U.S. is actively in a war declared by Congress, "real times" is some nebulous term you've created, used, asked me about, and not precisely defined.  I'm not like a lot of people whom you'll encounter in that I won't opine or make declarations about things I don't fully understand.


----------



## francoHFW

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
Click to expand...

Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
Click to expand...


Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.


----------



## francoHFW

Papageorgio said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
Click to expand...

Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.


----------



## francoHFW

REAGANISM, not Reagan. Arrggghh


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
Click to expand...


When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.


----------



## francoHFW

Papageorgio said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
Click to expand...

Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
Click to expand...


Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
Click to expand...


a flat tax on income still allows a business to write off expenses then the income (profit) is taxed at a flat rate


----------



## francoHFW

Papageorgio said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except our bloated rich and giant corporations, the beneficiaries of the Reaganism of the last 35 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
Click to expand...

The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...


----------



## Skull Pilot

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
Click to expand...

The less the government does the better it is for the people


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
Click to expand...

No.  You said it, I'm asking you.


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
Click to expand...


The greedy rich in Congress, you got that right. I am not going to defend The GOP, however I'm not going to let your rich Democratic friends off the hook. When they control Congress they did nothing to change tax laws. The Democrats held the majority in Congress and passed the tax laws that you blame Reagan for. It would never of happened without the Democratic Congress passing laws.


----------



## hadit

Xelor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a wealthy person.  He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich."  He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
> How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes?  I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know.  I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it.  I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward.  Do you?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?   or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you please clarify your comments using complete sentences that allow me to be certain about which parts of my prior post you are referring to.  I responded to you in clear English so you wouldn't have trouble understanding.  Would you do the same please?  I'd like to know what you are trying to communicate, but it's not at all clear in the most recent post above.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get.  I've been down that road.


----------



## Fang

The rich should have to pay the same percentage as everyone else. This means they are paying more money than the rest of us.


----------



## usmbguest5318

hadit said:


> Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.



Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.

What is there to say?  I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear.  He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates _is_ the conflict of interest.  For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far.  More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.  


> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?


I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it.  What is one to do?  Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fang said:


> The rich should have to pay the same percentage as everyone else. This means they are paying more money than the rest of us.


I ask this as sincerely as I can. . . 

Why is a tax "rate" considered to be "fair?" 

Just because someone  earns more, they should have to pay more? That doesn't seem fair to me, at all. 

If a billionaire is in line with you at the grocery store. . . Would you expect them to pay more to their gallon of milk than you pay for yours?

Why should their tax burden be treated any differently?

This is why I  favor taxes that are more based on usage and consumption. 

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## jc456

Xelor said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I can give you an empirical answer to what constitutes a "fair share" by income bracket regardless of who pays more or less taxes.
Click to expand...

then what exactly are you arguing?


----------



## jc456

Slyhunter said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is the fair share of money you spend on survival. If taxes dip into that than it's too much. Those who need more of their money, as a percentage, to pay the rent should pay the least. Those who can afford million dollar weddings should pay the most.
Click to expand...

why?


----------



## Fang

Chuz Life said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have to pay the same percentage as everyone else. This means they are paying more money than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask this as sincerely as I can. . .
> 
> Why is a tax "rate" considered to be "fair?"
> 
> Just because someone  earns more, they should have to pay more? That doesn't seem fair to me, at all.
> 
> If a billionaire is in line with you at the grocery store. . . Would you expect them to pay more to their gallon of milk than you pay for yours?
> 
> Why should their tax burden be treated any differently?
> 
> This is why I  favor taxes that are more based on usage and consumption.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...


A fair argument. I won't deny that. But it's certainly better than different tax rates based on income, although not as straight forward as tax based on usage. It seems like a compromise between two different philosophies.


----------



## hadit

Xelor said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.
> 
> What is there to say?  I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear.  He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates _is_ the conflict of interest.  For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far.  More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it.  What is one to do?  Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.
Click to expand...

You've already done more than most.


----------



## francoHFW

Skull Pilot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
Click to expand...

Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"


----------



## jc456

francoHFW said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
Click to expand...

if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.


----------



## francoHFW

Papageorgio said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greedy rich in Congress, you got that right. I am not going to defend The GOP, however I'm not going to let your rich Democratic friends off the hook. When they control Congress they did nothing to change tax laws. The Democrats held the majority in Congress and passed the tax laws that you blame Reagan for. It would never of happened without the Democratic Congress passing laws.
Click to expand...

And the New BS pander to the rich GOP blocking everything ever since...thanks, dupes.


----------



## jc456

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greedy rich in Congress, you got that right. I am not going to defend The GOP, however I'm not going to let your rich Democratic friends off the hook. When they control Congress they did nothing to change tax laws. The Democrats held the majority in Congress and passed the tax laws that you blame Reagan for. It would never of happened without the Democratic Congress passing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the New BS pander to the rich GOP blocking everything ever since...thanks, dupes.
Click to expand...

not in 2009 and 2010 dude.  sorry fella.


----------



## Skull Pilot

francoHFW said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
Click to expand...

you don't seem to realize that every law, every bill passed, every regulation costs all of us money do you?

GRIDLOCK IS GOOD

Learn it


----------



## usmbguest5318

hadit said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.
> 
> What is there to say?  I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear.  He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates _is_ the conflict of interest.  For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far.  More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it.  What is one to do?  Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've already done more than most.
Click to expand...


Excuse me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure your Congressmen, they are the ones not closing up the loopholes, they are the ones subsidizing them. If you are pissed, you should be pissed at Congress. Don't blame Reagan, he didn't pass any laws, that is why you are your bullshit is laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
Click to expand...

*
The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*

Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.

What's the top rate today, dupe?


----------



## francoHFW

Skull Pilot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't seem to realize that every law, every bill passed, every regulation costs all of us money do you?
> 
> GRIDLOCK IS GOOD
> 
> Learn it
Click to expand...

Yup, everything for the greedy idiot GOP megarich is great, dupe. Ay caramba....


----------



## whitehall

Where y'all been? They do pay higher taxes.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote Dem duh. All the GOP does is cut taxes on the rich and giant corps. And baffle dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
Click to expand...

Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"


----------



## francoHFW

whitehall said:


> Where y'all been? They do pay higher taxes.


No they don't, dupe. You're told a million times how much Fed income taxes are for them and 47% pay no taxes. Total bs.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9hIX02qTSAhVs1oMKHUC-DecQFghPMAs&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=qTKEujlnfDsw-iFm-etaYg
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9hIX02qTSAhVs1oMKHUC-DecQFghPMAs&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=qTKEujlnfDsw-iFm-etaYg
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:









That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.


----------



## hadit

Xelor said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.
> 
> What is there to say?  I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear.  He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates _is_ the conflict of interest.  For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far.  More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it.  What is one to do?  Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've already done more than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
Click to expand...

You engaged the member more politely and gave more opportunity for substantive response than a lot would have.


----------



## francoHFW

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greedy rich in Congress, you got that right. I am not going to defend The GOP, however I'm not going to let your rich Democratic friends off the hook. When they control Congress they did nothing to change tax laws. The Democrats held the majority in Congress and passed the tax laws that you blame Reagan for. It would never of happened without the Democratic Congress passing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the New BS pander to the rich GOP blocking everything ever since...thanks, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not in 2009 and 2010 dude.  sorry fella.
Click to expand...

BS. There were 200+ GOP filibusters in 2009-10. Two nice GOP ladies voted for the stimulus and got squashed for it, and the Dems had like 24 days with 60 votes in the Senate and barely passed ACA. Period, dupe.


----------



## usmbguest5318

hadit said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.
> 
> What is there to say?  I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear.  He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates _is_ the conflict of interest.  For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far.  More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it.  What is one to do?  Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've already done more than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You engaged the member more politely and gave more opportunity for substantive response than a lot would have.
Click to expand...

Understand.  TY.


----------



## Skull Pilot

francoHFW said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't seem to realize that every law, every bill passed, every regulation costs all of us money do you?
> 
> GRIDLOCK IS GOOD
> 
> Learn it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, everything for the greedy idiot GOP megarich is great, dupe. Ay caramba....
Click to expand...

you can't seem to understand that if Congress gets nothing done because of gridlock then the rich will get no special treatment


----------



## BrokeLoser

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



*"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me. 
None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
Click to expand...

*
Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*

The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.

There you are, idiot.

*BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*

DERP!

Tax cuts are coming, suck it!


----------



## francoHFW

Skull Pilot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't seem to realize that every law, every bill passed, every regulation costs all of us money do you?
> 
> GRIDLOCK IS GOOD
> 
> Learn it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, everything for the greedy idiot GOP megarich is great, dupe. Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't seem to understand that if Congress gets nothing done because of gridlock then the rich will get no special treatment
Click to expand...

They already are, dupe. Ay caramba.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
Click to expand...


All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
Click to expand...

Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.


BrokeLoser said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
Click to expand...

Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
Click to expand...

Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
Click to expand...


*State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*

It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
Click to expand...

*
Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*

Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
Corporate rate cuts are coming too!

Suck it!!!


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
Click to expand...

They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> 
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
Click to expand...


*They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*

And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
*
Under 50% is bad for the country.*

You're a moron.

*Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*

Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!


----------



## Papageorgio

francoHFW said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dems have held Congress they have failed to close loopholes and corporate welfare. They have no interest in biting the hands that feeds them. That goes for all of Congress, your partisan blinders are disgusting, bigoted and hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greedy rich in Congress, you got that right. I am not going to defend The GOP, however I'm not going to let your rich Democratic friends off the hook. When they control Congress they did nothing to change tax laws. The Democrats held the majority in Congress and passed the tax laws that you blame Reagan for. It would never of happened without the Democratic Congress passing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the New BS pander to the rich GOP blocking everything ever since...thanks, dupes.
Click to expand...


More Franco BS! Why did your Democrats cooperate with Reagan if his ideas were so bad. Do the Dems not have backbones?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
Click to expand...

The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> 
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...


If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
Click to expand...

 Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world. 

Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> 
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
Click to expand...


*Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*

You don't know what you're babbling about.....


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
Click to expand...

Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.


----------



## BrokeLoser

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> 
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
Click to expand...


Franco, have you always been this lost?
The "nonrich" are not rich by choice and many feel like they should be paid to live here. Did you dress as Robin Hood for Halloween every year?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*
> 
> You don't know what you're babbling about.....
Click to expand...

The S+L bubble was the worst since 1929, until 2008. Here we go again. What kind of bs bubble do expect this time, or just pure corruption lol? GD Republicans, dupe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this cry baby, "pay more of my way", "haul me around on your back", "pull my dead weight" shit is bullshit and drives me effin crazy. Many of these people wanting a free'er ride are no different than welfare recipients and other taxpayer tit suckers. Pull your own weight people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
Click to expand...


Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.

But why make things better, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*
> 
> You don't know what you're babbling about.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The S+L bubble was the worst since 1929, until 2008. Here we go again. What kind of bs bubble do expect this time, or just pure corruption lol? GD Republicans, dupe.
Click to expand...


And that has what to do with your huge error (lie?) about receipts?


----------



## francoHFW

BrokeLoser said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco, have you always been this lost?
> The "nonrich" are not rich by choice and many feel like they should be paid to live here. Did you dress as Robin Hood for Halloween every year?
Click to expand...

Nondupes, not blinded by bs, know a healthy middle class is needed for a good economy. We're PAST Gilded Age inequality now. Great job, a-holes and dupes.


----------



## BrokeLoser

francoHFW said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco, have you always been this lost?
> The "nonrich" are not rich by choice and many feel like they should be paid to live here. Did you dress as Robin Hood for Halloween every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nondupes, not blinded by bs, know a healthy middle class is needed for a good economy. We're PAST Gilded Age inequality now. Great job, a-holes and dupes.
Click to expand...


Government writes policy in an attempt to create pathways. Through policy GOV can only hope and attempt to stimulate and provoke the actions of the people. The people have to have the will and desire to carry out and execute. 
Example: Gov can create many pathways and make many resources available for Tyrone and ShaQuita to find success...Now, whether or not Tyrone and ShaQuita put down that joint and 40oz beverage to follow the path is out of GOV control. 
There was a time when it was much easier for GOV to play puppet master with the American public but that was a time when America was still American and most people were motivated to do better, be better and to succeed. Take a look around you...that's what GOV has to work with now....GOOD LUCK .GOV!


----------



## francoHFW

BrokeLoser said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
Click to expand...

BFD lol. Unless you make more than 250k, Dems only want tax cuts for you, dupe. We're just as successful as you are, dingbat. Take a break and relax lol. And change the gd channel- you'll have a heart attack lol.


----------



## francoHFW

BrokeLoser said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franco, have you always been this lost?
> The "nonrich" are not rich by choice and many feel like they should be paid to live here. Did you dress as Robin Hood for Halloween every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nondupes, not blinded by bs, know a healthy middle class is needed for a good economy. We're PAST Gilded Age inequality now. Great job, a-holes and dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government writes policy in an attempt to create pathways. Through policy GOV can only hope and attempt to stimulate and provoke the actions of the people. The people have to have the will and desire to carry out and execute.
> Example: Gov can create many pathways and make many resources available for Tyrone and ShaQuita to find success...Now, whether or not Tyrone and ShaQuita put down that joint and 40oz beverage to follow the path is out of GOV control.
> There was a time when it was much easier for GOV to play puppet master with the American public but that was a time when America was still American and most people were motivated to do better, be better and to succeed. Take a look around you...that's what GOV has to work with now....GOOD LUCK .GOV!
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of screwing yourself and your friends and familyy? LOL. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAINING have fallen apart under Reaganism DUH...

*The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*


----------



## mgh80

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



Agreed. The rich would still pay more in actual dollars, while proportionately paying the same.


----------



## BrokeLoser

francoHFW said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BFD lol. Unless you make more than 250k, Dems only want tax cuts for you, dupe. We're just as successful as you are, dingbat. Take a break and relax lol. And change the gd channel- you'll have a heart attack lol.
Click to expand...


"*We're just as successful as you are"*
So everyone who WORKS is equally successful? 
(Please answer this like I think you will just to confirm your level of Loon)


----------



## francoHFW

BrokeLoser said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year. Under 50% is bad for the country. Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*
> 
> You don't know what you're babbling about.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The S+L bubble was the worst since 1929, until 2008. Here we go again. What kind of bs bubble do expect this time, or just pure corruption lol? GD Republicans, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with your huge error (lie?) about receipts?
Click to expand...

Tax receipts? WTH ARE you taking about? Gov't revenue?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you. State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid, and THOSE taxes hit the nonrich.
> Brainwashed functional moron^^^*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.


----------



## francoHFW

BrokeLoser said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BFD lol. Unless you make more than 250k, Dems only want tax cuts for you, dupe. We're just as successful as you are, dingbat. Take a break and relax lol. And change the gd channel- you'll have a heart attack lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*We're just as successful as you are"*
> So everyone who WORKS is equally successful?
> (Please answer this like I think you will just to confirm your level of Loon)
Click to expand...

No, dumbkopf.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BFD lol. Unless you make more than 250k, Dems only want tax cuts for you, dupe. We're just as successful as you are, dingbat. Take a break and relax lol. And change the gd channel- you'll have a heart attack lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*We're just as successful as you are"*
> So everyone who WORKS is equally successful?
> (Please answer this like I think you will just to confirm your level of Loon)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbkopf.
Click to expand...

But I'm sure you spent more thought on work than on your politics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They were at 50% when they did any good. 28% was a kiss off his last year.*
> 
> And receipts were higher at 28% than at 50%.
> *
> Under 50% is bad for the country.*
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> *Enjoy the nonrich and the country continuing to fall apart...*
> 
> Yeah, our problems involve not giving the assclowns in DC enough of our money. Moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Receipts went in the dumper in '89. Corrupt S+L bubble too- and everone arrested. Great Job! And wrecked the Iraq-Iran area and Latin America. Feqing a-holes. Rummie and Cheney., Newt and Rush. A horror for the country and the world.
> 
> Infrastructure and training for good jobs. duh 30 years of letting it go. Not enough revenue, too much from the nonrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*
> 
> You don't know what you're babbling about.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The S+L bubble was the worst since 1929, until 2008. Here we go again. What kind of bs bubble do expect this time, or just pure corruption lol? GD Republicans, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with your huge error (lie?) about receipts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax receipts? WTH ARE you taking about? Gov't revenue?
Click to expand...

*
Tax receipts? WTH ARE you taking about?*

Your error (lie?)

*Receipts went in the dumper in '89.*

You forget already?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *State and local will raise their taxes to make up up for less fed aid*
> 
> It's true, Chicago will get less aid for our stupid "sanctuary city" bullshit. Morons.
> 
> 
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
Click to expand...


You don't want to save money? Moron.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The immigration problem will continue until the worthy are allowed to stay and are given paper work and a good SS ID card to STOP more coming. Trump's thing is crap and a waste of time and money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
Click to expand...

Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the worthy want paperwork, they should go home and get in line.
> We need a deadline, leave voluntarily by such and such date or get the boot forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
Click to expand...

*
Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*

How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the kind of bigoted brainwashed BS that ever happen, dupe. A waste of time and money like the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
Click to expand...

Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
Click to expand...


*Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*

Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.


----------



## hadit

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates,*
> 
> Reaganist tax rates are 15% and 28%.
> 
> What's the top rate today, dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still way too low and still Reaganist. And still full of loopholes and about to go back down again... what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly, BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...Just great for slow ruin of the nonrich and the country. "I know, a giant tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Still way too low...what is it- I believe 37% and 44%  over 450K supposedly*
> 
> The top rate is 39.6%. Only an idiot would claim a 41% hike, after Reagan, leaves us with Reaganist rates.
> 
> There you are, idiot.
> 
> *BUT ACTUALLY, effective more like 17%...*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Tax cuts are coming, suck it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%, and in our Golden Age it was 90%, so BULLLSHYTTE! lol.
> And now the top rate for the 1%  for all taxes is the same as the middle class, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell. The dupes live on an imaginary planet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Before Raygun, the top rate was 70%*
> 
> Yup. And Reaganist rates were 28%.
> Corporate rate cuts are coming too!
> 
> Suck it!!!
Click to expand...

Not to mention, because we're not supposed to remember it, Reagan closed a lot of loopholes when he dropped the rates.  It appears that the conveniently amnesiatic among us don't remember that no one paid 70% tax rates.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Chicago, we spend about $13,500 per student.
> Imagine how much better shape we'd be in if we just spent our money on citizens....might even have a few bucks to plug the pension holes.
> 
> But why make things better, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
Click to expand...

When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?

Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
Click to expand...

So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
Click to expand...

Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
Click to expand...

Saving the bloated rich from paying their fair share is all-important, dupe. lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
Click to expand...


Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.
Click to expand...

That's stupid, unfair bigotry talking. Don't waste your time, don't waste my time, DON"T WASTE TIME. Get them in a SYSTEM and get them ALL paying taxes, not just 65%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's stupid, unfair bigotry talking.
Click to expand...


Unfair to boot illegal aliens? Why?


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's stupid, unfair bigotry talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfair to boot illegal aliens? Why?
Click to expand...

Because they were given an open invitation to come here and work by the New BS GOP, and most are very worthy of legal status. The GOP only cares at election time...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> 
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's stupid, unfair bigotry talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfair to boot illegal aliens? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they were given an open invitation to come here and work by the New BS GOP, and most are very worthy of legal status. The GOP only cares at election time...
Click to expand...


*Because they were given an open invitation to come here and work*

They came here illegally. Now they're being invited to leave.
*
most are very worthy of legal status.*

Great. They should go home and apply legally.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....
Click to expand...

Obama and Bubba Clinton were Reaganists?  Who knew?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving the bloated rich from paying their fair share is all-important, dupe. lol
Click to expand...

It's more important for you to feel good about sticking it to some anonymous rich guy than using waste and unneeded bloat in the budget to fix problems that Obama promised he would fix, but didn't?

Tell you what, give us a number.  Until then, "fair share" just means "MORE, MORE, MORE".


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and Bubba Clinton were Reaganists?  Who knew?
Click to expand...

Not likely, dupe. Both obstructed by the New BS GOP. Reaganism rolls on.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving the bloated rich from paying their fair share is all-important, dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more important for you to feel good about sticking it to some anonymous rich guy than using waste and unneeded bloat in the budget to fix problems that Obama promised he would fix, but didn't?
> 
> Tell you what, give us a number.  Until then, "fair share" just means "MORE, MORE, MORE".
Click to expand...

Up 4% for every million until you hit 70%? WE NEED THE MONEY.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and Bubba Clinton were Reaganists?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely, dupe. Both obstructed by the New BS GOP. Reaganism rolls on.
Click to expand...

Evidence that either one made valid attempts to fix infrastructure that were thwarted?  Obama got literally hundreds of billions in extra funding, yet did nothing.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving the bloated rich from paying their fair share is all-important, dupe. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more important for you to feel good about sticking it to some anonymous rich guy than using waste and unneeded bloat in the budget to fix problems that Obama promised he would fix, but didn't?
> 
> Tell you what, give us a number.  Until then, "fair share" just means "MORE, MORE, MORE".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Up 4% for every million until you hit 70%? WE NEED THE MONEY.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's restore the 70% top rate AND all the loopholes Reagan closed.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> 
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and Bubba Clinton were Reaganists?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely, dupe. Both obstructed by the New BS GOP. Reaganism rolls on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence that either one made valid attempts to fix infrastructure that were thwarted?  Obama got literally hundreds of billions in extra funding, yet did nothing.
Click to expand...

200 billion in the stimulus, spent it. 2nd stimulus, infrastructure bank, infrastructure/jobs bills and everything else he wanted were blocked.


----------



## francoHFW

*The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage*
The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage...
Sep 23, 2014 - Republicans have blocked every effort since the stimulus to ... 2011: “Republicans filibuster Obama infrastructure bill”; 2012: ... What would it have meant for the economy and jobs to launch a ... more than half – more than 300 bills were waiting for Senate action by the time the Congress completed its work.
*$478B Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate GOP | The Fiscal Times*
www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/25/478B-Infrastructure-Bill-Blocked-Senate-GOP
Mar 25, 2015 - $478B Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate GOP .... We used to lead the world ininfrastructure, but now we're in 12thplace.” ... infrastructure but would put some nine million people back to work for the creation of new jobs.►
*Trump pushes infrastructure plans, but Congress blocked Obama on ...*
www.chicagotribune.com/.../ct-donald-trump-infrastructure-spending-20161111-stor...
Nov 11, 2016 - When President Barack Obama tried to do it, a Republican ... We're going to rebuild ourinfrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none," he said. ... Congress passed transportationbills in 2012 and 2015 to shore up the ... growth, which could be a boost to the economy and job creation.
*Senate blocks $60 billion infrastructure plan, another part of Obama ...*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...blocks...billion-infrastructure.../gIQACXjajM_stor...
Nov 3, 2011 - Democrats have been trying to move Obama's American Jobs Act forward plank ... said Democrats were disingenuous about trying to pass the bill, ... Republicans support infrastructure spending and would move a bill before ...
*Senate GOP blocks Obama infrastructure plan | NOLA.com*
www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/senate_gop_blocks_obama_infras.html
Nov 3, 2011 - After Republicans blocked Obama's infrastructure plan, the ... on 15 "forgotten" jobs bills, including a measure to repeal a law requiring federal, ...
*Third Obama jobs bill blocked in Senate - Washington Times*
www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../senate-gop-shoots-down-obama-infrastructure-bil...
Nov 3, 2011 - But Democrats said that bill cut too many corners, and they blocked it ... that the federal government should fund infrastructure, but they differ ... All 47 Republicans in the chamber voted against the Democrats' bill, as did Sen.
*Here Is The Stunning Utter Failure Of The Republican Led Congress ...*
www.politicususa.com/2015/06/25/read-utter-fail-170-days-gop-congress.html
Jun 25, 2015 - The first 170 days: Republicans passed zero jobs bills but raised the deficit by ... Just 25:Bills signed into law by President, including 2 that were ... 2: Times GOP has blocked bigger paychecks and better infrastructure so far in ...
*Barack Obama Floats Transportation Bill But Republican Balk | Time ...*
time.com/83073/barack-obama-transportation-republicans/
Apr 30, 2014 - But he barnstormed the country for the American Jobs Act. He has talked ... Republicanscontrol the House, and they can block legislation in the Senate. If they were willing to pass an Obamainfrastructure bill, then an Obama ...
*Why do Republicans really oppose infrastructure spending? - Daily Kos*
www.dailykos.com/.../-Why-do-Republicans-really-oppose-infrastructure-spending
May 15, 2015 - In 2012, House Republicans introduced a transportation bill ... Because only 70 HouseRepublicans could be found who were willing to vote for ... block recent clean air rules and make it harder for the administration to issue new rules. ... them from getting a fair shot at a job, and funnels taxpayer money to ...
*Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate Republicans*
republicansexposed.org/infrastructure-bill-blocked-by-senate-republicans/
Feb 24, 2016 - Senate Republicans defeated an amendment for a new multi-year program for funding ...Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate Republicans ... Republicans Responsible for Shipping American JobsOverseas and Outsourcing ...



*Searches related to infrastructure/jobs bills that were blocked by the GOP*
*republicans block* infrastructure *bill*

*list of* jobs bills blocked by *republicans*

*list of obama* bills blocked by *congress list*

*republicans* blocked *17* jobs bills

bills *republicans have* blocked *since obama took office*

*list of republican filibusters under obama*

*republican obstruction record*

*republican obstructionism list*


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> *The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage*
> The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage...
> Sep 23, 2014 - Republicans have blocked every effort since the stimulus to ... 2011: “Republicans filibuster Obama infrastructure bill”; 2012: ... What would it have meant for the economy and jobs to launch a ... more than half – more than 300 bills were waiting for Senate action by the time the Congress completed its work.
> *$478B Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate GOP | The Fiscal Times*
> www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/25/478B-Infrastructure-Bill-Blocked-Senate-GOP
> Mar 25, 2015 - $478B Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate GOP .... We used to lead the world ininfrastructure, but now we're in 12thplace.” ... infrastructure but would put some nine million people back to work for the creation of new jobs.►
> *Trump pushes infrastructure plans, but Congress blocked Obama on ...*
> www.chicagotribune.com/.../ct-donald-trump-infrastructure-spending-20161111-stor...
> Nov 11, 2016 - When President Barack Obama tried to do it, a Republican ... We're going to rebuild ourinfrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none," he said. ... Congress passed transportationbills in 2012 and 2015 to shore up the ... growth, which could be a boost to the economy and job creation.
> *Senate blocks $60 billion infrastructure plan, another part of Obama ...*
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/...blocks...billion-infrastructure.../gIQACXjajM_stor...
> Nov 3, 2011 - Democrats have been trying to move Obama's American Jobs Act forward plank ... said Democrats were disingenuous about trying to pass the bill, ... Republicans support infrastructure spending and would move a bill before ...
> *Senate GOP blocks Obama infrastructure plan | NOLA.com*
> www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/senate_gop_blocks_obama_infras.html
> Nov 3, 2011 - After Republicans blocked Obama's infrastructure plan, the ... on 15 "forgotten" jobs bills, including a measure to repeal a law requiring federal, ...
> *Third Obama jobs bill blocked in Senate - Washington Times*
> www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../senate-gop-shoots-down-obama-infrastructure-bil...
> Nov 3, 2011 - But Democrats said that bill cut too many corners, and they blocked it ... that the federal government should fund infrastructure, but they differ ... All 47 Republicans in the chamber voted against the Democrats' bill, as did Sen.
> *Here Is The Stunning Utter Failure Of The Republican Led Congress ...*
> www.politicususa.com/2015/06/25/read-utter-fail-170-days-gop-congress.html
> Jun 25, 2015 - The first 170 days: Republicans passed zero jobs bills but raised the deficit by ... Just 25:Bills signed into law by President, including 2 that were ... 2: Times GOP has blocked bigger paychecks and better infrastructure so far in ...
> *Barack Obama Floats Transportation Bill But Republican Balk | Time ...*
> time.com/83073/barack-obama-transportation-republicans/
> Apr 30, 2014 - But he barnstormed the country for the American Jobs Act. He has talked ... Republicanscontrol the House, and they can block legislation in the Senate. If they were willing to pass an Obamainfrastructure bill, then an Obama ...
> *Why do Republicans really oppose infrastructure spending? - Daily Kos*
> www.dailykos.com/.../-Why-do-Republicans-really-oppose-infrastructure-spending
> May 15, 2015 - In 2012, House Republicans introduced a transportation bill ... Because only 70 HouseRepublicans could be found who were willing to vote for ... block recent clean air rules and make it harder for the administration to issue new rules. ... them from getting a fair shot at a job, and funnels taxpayer money to ...
> *Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate Republicans*
> republicansexposed.org/infrastructure-bill-blocked-by-senate-republicans/
> Feb 24, 2016 - Senate Republicans defeated an amendment for a new multi-year program for funding ...Infrastructure Bill Blocked by Senate Republicans ... Republicans Responsible for Shipping American JobsOverseas and Outsourcing ...
> 
> 
> 
> *Searches related to infrastructure/jobs bills that were blocked by the GOP*
> *republicans block* infrastructure *bill*
> 
> *list of* jobs bills blocked by *republicans*
> 
> *list of obama* bills blocked by *congress list*
> 
> *republicans* blocked *17* jobs bills
> 
> bills *republicans have* blocked *since obama took office*
> 
> *list of republican filibusters under obama*
> 
> *republican obstruction record*
> 
> *republican obstructionism list*
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next


So much is just ignored by your ''news" media, it's ridiculous. Hilarious, eh? Ay caramba...


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> I wish I could have as much a right to my money as the leftards here think they have to it!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


Mr. Trump and the poor, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain, be Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> wealthy people do pay the majority of taxes despite the left claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on the left that matters has made that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been said by many that they aren't paying their fair share.   If they already pay the majority of taxes then what exactly is considered a fair share?
Click to expand...

How much in Personal Income Tax did Mr. Trump pay?


----------



## danielpalos

g5000 said:


> I don't care what kind of tax scheme you have (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, progressive tax, etc.), none of it means jack shit as long as we are being robbed of $1.4 trillion a year in tax expenditures which are paid for by higher tax rates and borrowing.
> 
> Tax expenditures are a massive transfer of wealth up the food chain, creating an unlevel playing field which benefits a select few.
> 
> We don't need to tax the rich more.  We need to eliminate tax expenditures and level the playing field.
> 
> Then we can LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.


Let's end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; since Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for them.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have nothing but diversion, which is usually considered a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
Click to expand...

How do we do that, with progressive forms of income tax; that we actually and currently have?

nothing but right wing fantasy and projection.


----------



## danielpalos

Xelor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Trump has proposed is lowering the marginal tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That _is_ the "conflict of interest" part.
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> In other words, are we in Real Times of War or not.
> 
> Real times of War require real times of War, tax rates;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People, have a need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed* via executive order, *for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if you are going to posit cocamamey shit, it needs to at least be shit that falls within the most basic confines of the law.  The President does not have the power to raise or lower tax rates.  That is a power of the Congress and they have yet ceded it to the President.  The closest thing to taxing power/authority that a president has is with regard to tariffs and trade agreements.  Sure, one can call that a tax, but it's not the type of tax we're discussing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are we in real times of War, or not:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot answer the question because "real times" and "war times" are not mutually exclusive things.  Moreover, though "war time" is at least definable in terms of whether the U.S. is actively in a war declared by Congress, "real times" is some nebulous term you've created, used, asked me about, and not precisely defined.  I'm not like a lot of people whom you'll encounter in that I won't opine or make declarations about things I don't fully understand.
Click to expand...

just lousy reading comprehension?  

are we in real times of War, or not:


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
Click to expand...

I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?


----------



## danielpalos

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blocked by the New BS GOP under Clinton AND Obama...O couldn't do that DURING a meltdown when he HAD power- for a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
Click to expand...

How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?


----------



## jc456

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
Click to expand...

I don't care, and he made a promise to the people who voted for him


----------



## Synthaholic

*Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?*

Yes.  That 1% should be taxed at very high levels.  We should adopt the Japanese model of CEOs being paid only X amount of times more than the lowest workers in that company.  Anything exceeding that should be taxed at at least 75%.  Inherited wealth should also be taxed at previous levels.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
Click to expand...

He paid whatever he was legally obligated to pay
Unless you can prove he actually cheated he has done nothing wrong


----------



## pwjohn

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Plus help pay for the endless bs wars and what can only be described as extravagant military spending that often times produces nothing but garbage.


----------



## Skull Pilot

pwjohn said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus help pay for the endless bs wars and what can only be described as extravagant military spending that often times produces nothing but garbage.
Click to expand...


so do you people actually think that poor people are incapable of being selfish?


----------



## pwjohn

gipper said:


> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.



There's more than a million dirtbags out there posing as tax attorneys and accountants that will crap all over your best efforts to effect change in the way you describe. And in the process, make the tax code even more complex


----------



## pwjohn

Skull Pilot said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus help pay for the endless bs wars and what can only be described as extravagant military spending that often times produces nothing but garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so do you people actually think that poor people are incapable of being selfish?
Click to expand...


Criminals and thieves


----------



## pwjohn

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
Click to expand...


The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.


----------



## owebo

pwjohn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
Click to expand...

Al sharpton is one of his cronies?


----------



## pwjohn

owebo said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
Click to expand...


He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.


----------



## owebo

pwjohn said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> 
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
Click to expand...

Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...


----------



## pwjohn

owebo said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> 
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
Click to expand...


I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.


----------



## owebo

pwjohn said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
Click to expand...

Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?


----------



## pwjohn

owebo said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> 
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
Click to expand...


Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.


----------



## owebo

pwjohn said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
Click to expand...

That link?


----------



## pwjohn

owebo said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
Click to expand...


*Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?
Click to expand...

So you don't have any evidence.  Got it.  You can stop saying that now.


----------



## hadit

pwjohn said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to two decades of Trumps tax returns?  Thanks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
Click to expand...

So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

pwjohn said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> 
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al sharpton is one of his cronies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owes taxes. Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero. And over a two decade period of time. And did I forget to mention trump lived a life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in the process.
Click to expand...

*
Trump did the exact same thing with a balance due of zero.*

So why are you whining? Taxable income of zero means tax due is zero.


----------



## Skull Pilot

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
Click to expand...

whiners whine
it's what they do


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses. It's funny how the GOP gets everything they want passed and the Democrats are blocked all the time. Sounds like the Democrats are pretty pathetic lawmakers. Your BS is off the charts. The more you simple minded people play partisan politics the better of the rich and Congress are. Dupe!
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
Click to expand...


It's none of yours or my business how much President Trump paid in taxes. He didn't ask for a tax break, he took all the legal deductions he qualified for, just like you or I would. The laws Congress wrote are the issues, not whether people who qualified for a tax deduction of credit took what they were legally allowed.


----------



## pwjohn

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
Click to expand...


Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.

My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  

By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing


----------



## hadit

pwjohn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
Click to expand...


Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.



> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing


My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.


----------



## pwjohn

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
Click to expand...


Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled


You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not


----------



## hadit

pwjohn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
Click to expand...


Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.



> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not


Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.


----------



## danielpalos

jc456 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care, and he made a promise to the people who voted for him
Click to expand...

if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break? I mean dude, be consistent at least.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?
> 
> Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have any evidence.  Got it.  You can stop saying that now.
Click to expand...

You don't have any evidence to the contrary; You can stop that now, as well.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
Click to expand...

So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have any evidence.  Got it.  You can stop saying that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have any evidence to the contrary; You can stop that now, as well.
Click to expand...

I don't have to.  I didn't make the assertion.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
Click to expand...

That other guy certainly does.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
Click to expand...

You brought them up. He was talking about scams of all kinds.


----------



## pwjohn

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
Click to expand...


You're wasting my time. Oh and be sure and splash on your new trumps ass cologne liberally. Probably brings back fond memories for your wife


----------



## jc456

Synthaholic said:


> *Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?*
> 
> Yes.  That 1% should be taxed at very high levels.  We should adopt the Japanese model of CEOs being paid only X amount of times more than the lowest workers in that company.  Anything exceeding that should be taxed at at least 75%.  Inherited wealth should also be taxed at previous levels.


well go live in Japan.


----------



## jc456

pwjohn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than a million dirtbags out there posing as tax attorneys and accountants that will crap all over your best efforts to effect change in the way you describe. And in the process, make the tax code even more complex
Click to expand...

flat tax ends that problem right?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we ask, wikileaks?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have any evidence.  Got it.  You can stop saying that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have any evidence to the contrary; You can stop that now, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to.  I didn't make the assertion.
Click to expand...

yes, You are implying he has Standing due to having paid personal Income taxes.


----------



## Little-Acorn

jc456 said:


> flat tax ends that problem right?


Yes.

But that would only bring out something no one has talked about much: Nearly half of Americans don't pay ANY income tax. And some of those even get money back from the government, in the form of "Earned Income Tax Credit" or other such disguised-Welfare subsidies.

How do you offer an income tax cut to people who don't pay any?

The flat tax will have the effect of placing the same percentage tax on those people, as on those who DO already pay income taxes. In other words, it will INCREASE their taxes, from zero to 15% or whatever the percentage is.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> *Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?*
> 
> In general govt can do, what you can do.
> Taking more from the people who earn more, is simple theft.
> Whether it's govt doing it or you doing it.





xyz said:


> Yeah, it's amazing what one month of Trump can do.


I've made this point many times over the years.

No one has ever refuted it yet.


----------



## pwjohn

jc456 said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than a million dirtbags out there posing as tax attorneys and accountants that will crap all over your best efforts to effect change in the way you describe. And in the process, make the tax code even more complex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> flat tax ends that problem right?
Click to expand...


Youre a deeply stupid man. Refer to my comment that you quoted for the reason why.


----------



## Yarddog

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.




Taxation was never intended to be a punishment. A good number of them use their wealth to help others I'm sure, in ways the government cant, or wont. The federal government is not a charity, their programs to help people are much more full of fraud and wasteful than when people donate privately on their own


----------



## hadit

pwjohn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wasting my time. Oh and be sure and splash on your new trumps ass cologne liberally. Probably brings back fond memories for your wife
Click to expand...

And you gave up so quickly, too.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said it, I'm asking you.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the delegated authority; we need to ask Congress.  Want to help draft a letter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't have any evidence.  Got it.  You can stop saying that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have any evidence to the contrary; You can stop that now, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to.  I didn't make the assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, You are implying he has Standing due to having paid personal Income taxes.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the whole thing.  You might be able to figure it out.


----------



## sartre play

Just  there fair share by gross income. minus reasonable deductions, not loop holes.


----------



## hadit

sartre play said:


> Just  there fair share by gross income. minus reasonable deductions, not loop holes.


1.  "Fair share" has to be defined.  Right now, it just means "MORE".
2.  "Reasonable deductions" has to be defined.
3.  What is a "loop hole" that is not a "reasonable deduction"?


----------



## sakinago

francoHFW said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
Click to expand...


So a flat tax, of say only 13%, starting after the first 50,000$...hurts the poor how? And if it somehow helps the rich in the end too (as long as they have made their money an honest way providing a service or product people choose to buy), is that somehow a bad thing? Are these rich lesser citizens? Or should they be treated as equals? 

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" 

It doesn't say created to be equal, but created equal. I think the left has a hard time with this concept. Where I'm getting at, is this was something that was intended to be a what's good for the goose, is good for the gaggle situation, with untouchable ground rules in place.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation.  That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.
> 
> Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote.  This is what you wrote:
> 
> "*Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the chart below.  If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups.  Do you know what a quintile is?  I don't think you do.  What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.
> 
> There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate.  Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ
> 
> At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.
> 
> This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
> 
> There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
> 
> But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."
> 
> Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
> 
> Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
> 
> That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
> 
> But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?
> 
> Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a flat tax, of say only 13%, starting after the first 50,000$...hurts the poor how? And if it somehow helps the rich in the end too (as long as they have made their money an honest way providing a service or product people choose to buy), is that somehow a bad thing? Are these rich lesser citizens? Or should they be treated as equals?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"
> 
> It doesn't say created to be equal, but created equal. I think the left has a hard time with this concept. Where I'm getting at, is this was something that was intended to be a what's good for the goose, is good for the gaggle situation, with untouchable ground rules in place.
Click to expand...

is the right wing going to stop complaining that the poor pay no taxes?


----------



## JoeNormal

Ray From Cleveland said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to trot out this incredibly stupid statistic?  All it shows is that wealth disparity is currently horrendous.


----------



## JoeNormal

bear513 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax
Click to expand...

Sometimes you get what you pay for.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeNormal said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the wealthiest into Heaven by solving simple poverty in our Republic?


----------



## JoeNormal

danielpalos said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes you get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the wealthiest into Heaven by solving simple poverty in our Republic?
Click to expand...

Not in my mind.


----------



## 2aguy

No....everyone should pay the same percent..between 10-15% of any income.......


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes you get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the wealthiest into Heaven by solving simple poverty in our Republic?
Click to expand...



Taxing the rich won't solve poverty....graduating from high school, not getting a criminal record, not having kids before you are married, ...those 3 things will keep you out of poverty........and you don't have to steal from the rich to do any of them....


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> No....everyone should pay the same percent..between 10-15% of any income.......


Why?  Equality is a social concept not a capital concept.

Under Capitalism, you get what you pay for.

The best things in life are "free" only under socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country.  If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay?  75%? 80%?  95%?
> 
> About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all.  Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change.  And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world.  We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but but but but... What about local taxes? Those poor bastards in cook county Illinois  voted for democrats and now have to pay a 10.25% sales tax...
> 
> Meanwhile I left that place, vote for republicans  in South Carolina and only have to pay a 6% sales tax
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes you get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the wealthiest into Heaven by solving simple poverty in our Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing the rich won't solve poverty....graduating from high school, not getting a criminal record, not having kids before you are married, ...those 3 things will keep you out of poverty........and you don't have to steal from the rich to do any of them....
Click to expand...

We know better now.  Being undercapitalized is a leading cause of small business failure.  

Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....everyone should pay the same percent..between 10-15% of any income.......
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Equality is a social concept not a capital concept.
> 
> Under Capitalism, you get what you pay for.
> 
> The best things in life are "free" only under socialism.
Click to expand...



No...the best things in life only exist for the rich under socialism...everyone else gets the worst......


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The poor pay no taxes as it is.


----------



## Billo_Really

We need to tax the holy shit out of the rich.  They've been getting away with too much for too long.  This is bullshit  treating the rich so nice, letting them have tax cuts and seeing poor right folk doing their bidding for them.  Well, fuck that!  Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Billo_Really said:


> We need to tax the holy shit out of the rich.  They've been getting away with too much for too long.  This is bullshit  treating the rich so nice, letting them have tax cuts and seeing poor right folk doing their bidding for them.  Well, fuck that!  Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.



*They've been getting away with too much for too long.*

Like what? Be specific.

*letting them have tax cuts*

Bush and Reagan gave everyone tax cuts.
*
Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.*

How much are you paying? Why do you think the rich are paying less?


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"*
> NO....why you ask? (oh please ask why)
> While all you broke low-life bastards were fucking around ditching school, not trying in school, dropping out and smoking weed I was busting my ass playing football, wrestling, taking all honors courses and studying until 2-3am every night. And where were all you noble, giving mother fuckers when I had to pony up tuition for my high dollar degree and work two or three jobs to cover it. Go fuck yourselves and pave your own path...stop riding my back and others like me.
> None of this makes any sense to you bottom feeding leeches does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BFD lol. Unless you make more than 250k, Dems only want tax cuts for you, dupe. We're just as successful as you are, dingbat. Take a break and relax lol. And change the gd channel- you'll have a heart attack lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*We're just as successful as you are"*
> So everyone who WORKS is equally successful?
> (Please answer this like I think you will just to confirm your level of Loon)
Click to expand...

Only if everyone who argues, is equally successful.  You usually just have fallacy for your Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
Click to expand...

Chicago could pay more for infrastructure if we didn't have an "illegal" war on drugs.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about adult ed, not High Schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to save money? Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years. You would save more money with Dems, experience shows. If they had the power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Saving money (by the rich) been killing the country and middle class for 35 years.*
> 
> How is saving the money currently spent on educating the children of illegal aliens going to kill the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
Click to expand...

the rich got their bailout, first.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training*
> 
> Chicago could pay for more infrastructure if they weren't paying $13.5 K per year educating illegal alien students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pass an immigration bill with a good SS ID card and END any more coming in. Considering the open invitation of no such thing by the GOP forever (and continuing with Trump and his useless wall etc etc), it's inhumane to throw out worthy (and needed) illegals, dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, end more coming in, boot millions of current illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's stupid, unfair bigotry talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfair to boot illegal aliens? Why?
Click to expand...

let's get the first degrees, first.


----------



## JBond

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic. 

I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.

Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue is too low to support infrastructure and adult education/training. The rich don't pay enough.
> 
> 
> 
> When revenue is too low, the smart thing to do is reduce costs elsewhere.  Does ANYONE truly believe that we cannot find billions of dollars in the current budget we could redirect into infrastructure?
> 
> Anyway, we don't have infrastructure problems.  Obama promised us thousands of shovel ready jobs if we just gave him hundreds of billions to spend on infrastructure.  Therefore, he has fixed the problems.  You aren't saying he lied, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only $200 billion, dupe. We need trillions to make up for 35 years of Reaganist ignoring growing problems....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and Bubba Clinton were Reaganists?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely, dupe. Both obstructed by the New BS GOP. Reaganism rolls on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence that either one made valid attempts to fix infrastructure that were thwarted?  Obama got literally hundreds of billions in extra funding, yet did nothing.
Click to expand...




> President Obama signed into a law a five-year, $305 billion highway bill on Friday, with just hours to spare before the scheduled expiration of the nation's road and transit spending.
> 
> Funding had been set to expire at midnight.
> 
> 
> The new law, paid for with gas tax revenue and a package of $70 billion in offsets from other areas of the federal budget, calls for spending approximately $205 billion on highways and $48 billion on transit projects over the next five years. It also reauthorizes the controversial Export-Import Bank’s expired charter until 2019.
> 
> The measure is the first long-term national transportation spending package in a decade. It follows a string of temporary patches that began before Obama entered office.
> 
> Ending the pattern of short stopgap funding fixes has been a priority this year for both the Obama administration and Republican leaders in Congress.
> 
> ....
> Source: Obama signs $305B highway bill


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He paid whatever he was legally obligated to pay
> Unless you can prove he actually cheated he has done nothing wrong
Click to expand...

why does a rich guy need a tax break?  is he not "rich enough"?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He paid whatever he was legally obligated to pay
> Unless you can prove he actually cheated he has done nothing wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does a rich guy need a tax break?  is he not "rich enough"?
Click to expand...

he didn't get a tax break he paid the taxes he was legally obligated to pay just like you


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus help pay for the endless bs wars and what can only be described as extravagant military spending that often times produces nothing but garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so do you people actually think that poor people are incapable of being selfish?
Click to expand...

Only if they have a, "wealth" of it.


----------



## danielpalos

pwjohn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The short answer; Trump wants to make sure all his cronies get out of paying any taxes just he did.
Click to expand...

Now we know how Mr. Trump got the electoral vote?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say he hasn't paid a dime in two decades. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove to me has paid fed taxes during the last two decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....we see your limited intelligence at work.....now, that link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the personal attacks start and you question my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Trump* could *have* avoided US *federal taxes* for *18 years*, NYT reports. ... According to the report, *Trump* declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income *tax*return - a deduction that would *have* legally allowed him to avoid *paying federal tax* for up to *18 years*.Oct 1, 2016
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
Click to expand...

dear, Mr. Trump and the poor pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay;

don't whine; be Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP only wants to defend Reaganist tax rates, keep deregulation and block progress, genius. They never pass ANYTHING, dupe. The greedy idiot rich love things as is...
> 
> 
> 
> The less the government does the better it is for the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you must love the total bs of the last 35 years, chump. "I know, another tax cut for the rich!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you say they don't pay taxes now, then how is it they can get a tax break?  I mean dude, be consistent at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much did Mr. Trump pay in personal income taxes, and why is He asking for a tax break, if he doesn't pay personal income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of yours or my business how much President Trump paid in taxes. He didn't ask for a tax break, he took all the legal deductions he qualified for, just like you or I would. The laws Congress wrote are the issues, not whether people who qualified for a tax deduction of credit took what they were legally allowed.
Click to expand...

The right wing Only complains when the poor only the pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
Click to expand...

the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
Click to expand...


The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay

I really can't understand why this baffles you so

IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> flat tax ends that problem right?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But that would only bring out something no one has talked about much: Nearly half of Americans don't pay ANY income tax. And some of those even get money back from the government, in the form of "Earned Income Tax Credit" or other such disguised-Welfare subsidies.
> 
> How do you offer an income tax cut to people who don't pay any?
> 
> The flat tax will have the effect of placing the same percentage tax on those people, as on those who DO already pay income taxes. In other words, it will INCREASE their taxes, from zero to 15% or whatever the percentage is.
Click to expand...

Why offer a capital gains preference that benefits mostly the wealthy, but does not ensure Jobs Booms, for the rest of us?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> flat tax ends that problem right?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But that would only bring out something no one has talked about much: Nearly half of Americans don't pay ANY income tax. And some of those even get money back from the government, in the form of "Earned Income Tax Credit" or other such disguised-Welfare subsidies.
> 
> How do you offer an income tax cut to people who don't pay any?
> 
> The flat tax will have the effect of placing the same percentage tax on those people, as on those who DO already pay income taxes. In other words, it will INCREASE their taxes, from zero to 15% or whatever the percentage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why offer a capital gains preference that benefits mostly the wealthy, but does not ensure Jobs Booms, for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

we shouldn't we should tax ALL income at the same rate no matter where it comes from


----------



## JBond

Billo_Really said:


> We need to tax the holy shit out of the rich.  They've been getting away with too much for too long.  This is bullshit  treating the rich so nice, letting them have tax cuts and seeing poor right folk doing their bidding for them.  Well, fuck that!  Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.


I wonder why Obama never addressed the billionaires? He talked about it, but none of the plans he put forth did. He always targeted the small business owner, never the billionaire. The Dems are absolute phonies on this topic. Their actions never match their rhetoric.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
Click to expand...

there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.

the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
Click to expand...


they have all the protection anyone else does


----------



## jc456

Billo_Really said:


> We need to tax the holy shit out of the rich.  They've been getting away with too much for too long.  This is bullshit  treating the rich so nice, letting them have tax cuts and seeing poor right folk doing their bidding for them.  Well, fuck that!  Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.


explain please.


----------



## jc456

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
Click to expand...


----------



## jc456

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to tax the holy shit out of the rich.  They've been getting away with too much for too long.  This is bullshit  treating the rich so nice, letting them have tax cuts and seeing poor right folk doing their bidding for them.  Well, fuck that!  Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They've been getting away with too much for too long.*
> 
> Like what? Be specific.
> 
> *letting them have tax cuts*
> 
> Bush and Reagan gave everyone tax cuts.
> *
> Force the rich to pay what the rest of us are paying.*
> 
> How much are you paying? Why do you think the rich are paying less?
Click to expand...

the left has never figured out how to use percentages on money.  EVAH


----------



## Rambunctious

Everyone should pay the same percentage. That can be done with a national sales tax and eliminating income tax. That way even illegal aliens and drug dealers will pay too. Share the pain fairly and equally. Eliminate the dirty filthy corrupt IRS!


----------



## Rambunctious

Funding the federal government via taxes should not be a welfare program. Everyone should be contributing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Rambunctious said:


> Everyone should pay the same percentage. That can be done with a national sales tax and eliminating income tax. That way even illegal aliens and drug dealers will pay too. Share the pain fairly and equally. Eliminate the dirty filthy corrupt IRS!



I don't necessarily have a problem with a consumption tax

My biggest problem with e Fair Tax plan is the so called Pre-bate.

It makes no sense to me to charge a higher rate only to incur the cost and red tape of sending every person in the country a check every month

lower the rate exclude things like food (grocery store not restaurants), prescriptions and clothing up to a specific dollar amount lower the rate and skip all the pre-bate nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> 
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they have all the protection anyone else does
Click to expand...

no, they don't.  the wealthiest can simply, "purchase" better privileges and immunities than the rest of us; that also includes, State Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

jc456 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much business does he do with Russia/ Saudi? Nobody cares about his write offs.
> 
> 
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.


----------



## jc456

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they have all the protection anyone else does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they don't.  the wealthiest can simply, "purchase" better privileges and immunities than the rest of us; that also includes, State Capitalism.
Click to expand...

what does purchase better privileges mean exactly?  Are you talking about body guards?  Not sure what your getting at with the comment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
Click to expand...

obeying the law is patriotic


----------



## Skull Pilot

jc456 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they have all the protection anyone else does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they don't.  the wealthiest can simply, "purchase" better privileges and immunities than the rest of us; that also includes, State Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does purchase better privileges mean exactly?  Are you talking about body guards?  Not sure what your getting at with the comment.
Click to expand...

he's not sure either


----------



## Papageorgio

pwjohn said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if it's legal, why the incessant whining over it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's that part where he lived a life of champagne wishs & caviar dreams that chaps my ass. That makes what trumps doing a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams are illegal.  What Trump did was not.  Even you SHOULD be able to see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a self employed businessman and when he suffered substantial losses that reduced his taxable income to zero or even near zero,  our lifestyle took a big hit as well. In other words we felt it. That's the real world.  By the way, how does your wife like that new trumps ass cologne you're wearing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dog's farts are smarter than that lame attempt at an insult.  Please pay the receptionist on your way out and try again next week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes scams are illegal and trump should be sitting in prison right now for the scams he pulled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show where he his write-off was illegal.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You started with the lame insults. Not me. And I'm sorry you have to suffer through your dog farts. Not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Cite the insult.  Failing that, give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wasting my time. Oh and be sure and splash on your new trumps ass cologne liberally. Probably brings back fond memories for your wife
Click to expand...


You must of lost the argument big time judging by the insults, better luck next time.


----------



## Papageorgio

JBond said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic.
> 
> I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.
> 
> Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.
Click to expand...


Spot on! It's easy to get the rich. It's divisive and pits rich against poor, let's the government off the hook. Pretty easy for the Democrats to do.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That other guy certainly does.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
Click to expand...


No link, just your opinion, that a $5 gets you a coffee at your liberal Starbucks. Back up your opinion, be Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

jc456 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they have all the protection anyone else does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they don't.  the wealthiest can simply, "purchase" better privileges and immunities than the rest of us; that also includes, State Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does purchase better privileges mean exactly?  Are you talking about body guards?  Not sure what your getting at with the comment.
Click to expand...

are you on the right?  I thought it was a self-evident Truth, that capital matters, under Any form of Capitalism.

something as simple as being able to keep your multimillion dollar bonus while on _means tested_ corporate, makes a very big, capital difference.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obeying the law is patriotic
Click to expand...

it should be.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic.
> 
> I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.
> 
> Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on! It's easy to get the rich. It's divisive and pits rich against poor, let's the government off the hook. Pretty easy for the Democrats to do.
Click to expand...

When are the Republicans going to stop being _infidel_, _protestant_, and _renegade_ to their own, Republican Doctrine regarding our alleged, War on Drugs?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link, just your opinion, that a $5 gets you a coffee at your liberal Starbucks. Back up your opinion, be Patriotic.
Click to expand...

should we ask Mr. Trump, how much he actually pays in personal, federal income taxes?

if not, then don't complain about the poor, who pay only the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.  that is all.


----------



## hadit

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing complains the poor don't pay any personal income tax (like Mr. Trump).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link, just your opinion, that a $5 gets you a coffee at your liberal Starbucks. Back up your opinion, be Patriotic.
Click to expand...

You're going to be very frustrated waiting for anything of substance from that one.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic.
> 
> I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.
> 
> Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on! It's easy to get the rich. It's divisive and pits rich against poor, let's the government off the hook. Pretty easy for the Democrats to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are the Republicans going to stop being _infidel_, _protestant_, and _renegade_ to their own, Republican Doctrine regarding our alleged, War on Drugs?
Click to expand...


All drugs need to be legalized, sold through a pharmacy and taxed, with the taxes going to rehab. When are you going to get smart and not rely on a party.


----------



## Papageorgio

hadit said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom 47% pay what they are legally obligated to pay Trump paid what he was legally obligated to pay
> 
> I really can't understand why this baffles you so
> 
> IMO everyone should pay a flat percentage of their gross income and that's all
> 
> 
> 
> there is no, "bafflement" only the abomination of hypocrisy regarding the poor.
> 
> the right wing, makes it seem, like the poor are not capitally worth equal protection of the law with our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Poor and Mr. Trump pay only the personal income taxes they are legally obligated to pay.
> 
> don't complain or whine; be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link, just your opinion, that a $5 gets you a coffee at your liberal Starbucks. Back up your opinion, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to be very frustrated waiting for anything of substance from that one.
Click to expand...


I don't get frustrated with Danny, he is a clown that entertains me. He just blathers nonsense and think he is smart, just like the other town idiots.


----------



## JBond

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic.
> 
> I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.
> 
> Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on! It's easy to get the rich. It's divisive and pits rich against poor, let's the government off the hook. Pretty easy for the Democrats to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are the Republicans going to stop being _infidel_, _protestant_, and _renegade_ to their own, Republican Doctrine regarding our alleged, War on Drugs?
Click to expand...

Obama ended the war on drugs? Fantastic news, I guess. Sigh...


----------



## GHook93

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Depends on what you consider rich.

I pull in roughly $130k a year and my wife makes little over $50k. At $180k we make enough for a comfortable life, but we still must have a tight budget it. When college comes around it is going to be tough to pay for it!

I honestly don't consider people making $250k a year rich! 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## GHook93

I would consider a flat progressive tax. Meaning everyone pays the day tax for the same dollars.

0 to $25k = 0
$25 to $50k = 5%
$50k to $100k = 10%
$100k to $250k = 15%
$250k to $500k = 25%
$500k to $1 mil = 40%
$1 mil to $2 mil = 50%
$2 mil to $10 mil = 60%
$10 mil+ = 70%

Deduction: Child deduction, Charity donations, student loan payments and medical bills.

For example
Say you make $300k a year.
First $25k = $0
Next $25k = $1.25k
Next $50k = $5k
Next $150k = $22.5k
Last $50k = $12.5k
Total $41,250 on a 13.7% average rate.

Also tax capital gains in similar progressive tax






Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## jc456

GHook93 said:


> I would consider a flat progressive tax. Meaning everyone pays the day tax for the same dollars.
> 
> 0 to $25k = 0
> $25 to $50k = 5%
> $50k to $100k = 10%
> $100k to $250k = 15%
> $250k to $500k = 25%
> $500k to $1 mil = 40%
> $1 mil to $2 mil = 50%
> $2 mil to $10 mil = 60%
> $10 mil+ = 70%
> 
> Deduction: Child deduction, Charity donations, student loan payments and medical bills.
> 
> For example
> Say you make $300k a year.
> First $25k = $0
> Next $25k = $1.25k
> Next $50k = $5k
> Next $150k = $22.5k
> Last $50k = $12.5k
> Total $41,250 on a 13.7% average rate.
> 
> Also tax capital gains in similar progressive tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


so what we have today is your point? LOL


----------



## Skull Pilot

GHook93 said:


> I would consider a flat progressive tax. Meaning everyone pays the day tax for the same dollars.
> 
> 0 to $25k = 0
> $25 to $50k = 5%
> $50k to $100k = 10%
> $100k to $250k = 15%
> $250k to $500k = 25%
> $500k to $1 mil = 40%
> $1 mil to $2 mil = 50%
> $2 mil to $10 mil = 60%
> $10 mil+ = 70%
> 
> Deduction: Child deduction, Charity donations, student loan payments and medical bills.
> 
> For example
> Say you make $300k a year.
> First $25k = $0
> Next $25k = $1.25k
> Next $50k = $5k
> Next $150k = $22.5k
> Last $50k = $12.5k
> Total $41,250 on a 13.7% average rate.
> 
> Also tax capital gains in similar progressive tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


flat progressive is an oxymoron


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The rich do pay more. Liberals are pathetic.
> 
> I waited for eight years for Obama to address the billionaires, but he did as was told and sucked them off instead.
> 
> Simple rhetoric plays well with people like Matthew. He hears, "get the rich", and starts foaming at the mouth, but then his leadership lies to him and goes after small business owner instead of the billionaire club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on! It's easy to get the rich. It's divisive and pits rich against poor, let's the government off the hook. Pretty easy for the Democrats to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are the Republicans going to stop being _infidel_, _protestant_, and _renegade_ to their own, Republican Doctrine regarding our alleged, War on Drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All drugs need to be legalized, sold through a pharmacy and taxed, with the taxes going to rehab. When are you going to get smart and not rely on a party.
Click to expand...

After we convince individuals in Legislature.


----------



## Billo_Really

JBond said:


> I wonder why Obama never addressed the billionaires? He talked about it, but none of the plans he put forth did. He always targeted the small business owner, never the billionaire. The Dems are absolute phonies on this topic. Their actions never match their rhetoric.


Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.  They both answer to those billionaires.  And that includes Obama.  Bottom line, he's a politician. There's a lot of shit he did that was wrong.  I'm talking about the real things he did, not the made up stuff from the right.

We need to reverse Citizens United and repeal that 19th century law that said corporations can have the same Constitutional rights as an actual human being.  These billionaires could care less about the health and welfare of this country and I think its about time we showed them the door swings both ways.


----------



## Billo_Really

jc456 said:


> explain please.


They pay between 10 - 15% tax rate on capitol gains, no tax on dividends and they're allowed to offshore their profits to avoid paying more taxes.  I pay approximately 25 - 30% tax rate.  I don't want them paying less than I do.

We need to raise the tax rate on capitol gains a full 10%, start taxing stock dividends at 25%, impose a Franchise Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street and close these loopholes that allow them to offshore profits.


----------



## Billo_Really

jc456 said:


> the left has never figured out how to use percentages on money.  EVAH


I know  enough to know their percentages are less than mine and that is bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Billo_Really said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why Obama never addressed the billionaires? He talked about it, but none of the plans he put forth did. He always targeted the small business owner, never the billionaire. The Dems are absolute phonies on this topic. Their actions never match their rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.  They both answer to those billionaires.  And that includes Obama.  Bottom line, he's a politician. There's a lot of shit he did that was wrong.  I'm talking about the real things he did, not the made up stuff from the right.
> 
> We need to reverse Citizens United and repeal that 19th century law that said corporations can have the same Constitutional rights as an actual human being.  These billionaires could care less about the health and welfare of this country and I think its about time we showed them the door swings both ways.
Click to expand...


*We need to reverse Citizens United*

Exactly! Because if someone makes a film about Hillary that makes her look bad.....it's unfair!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain please.
> 
> 
> 
> They pay between 10 - 15% tax rate on capitol gains, no tax on dividends and they're allowed to offshore their profits to avoid paying more taxes.  I pay approximately 25 - 30% tax rate.  I don't want them paying less than I do.
> 
> We need to raise the tax rate on capitol gains a full 10%, start taxing stock dividends at 25%, impose a Franchise Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street and close these loopholes that allow them to offshore profits.
Click to expand...



*They pay between 10 - 15% tax rate on capitol gains*

Wrong.

*Calculating the tax*
_Once you know the amount of the gain, you need to know the tax rates that apply. Three different rates exist on long-term capital gains, and which one is right for you depends on __what tax bracket you're in__:_


_If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket for ordinary income, then your long-term capital gains rate is 0%._
_If you're in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax bracket, then your long-term capital gains rate is 15%._
_If you're in the 39.6% tax bracket, then your long-term capital gains rate is 20%._
_Those rates apply to federal taxes, but if your state has an income tax, you'll probably have to add on an additional amount there. Some states, such as California, make no distinction between long-term capital gains and other types of income in imposing taxes. Others, such as Massachusetts, have much lower rates for long-term capital gains than for short-term gains. Your particular tax rate will depend on your income level and the specific brackets that your state imposes. For a good overview, check out __this article on state capital gains taxes__._

*3 other things to keep in mind*
_In addition to the above, there are a few things you should remember about long-term and the taxes you have to pay on them.
First, for high-income taxpayers, long-term capital gains do count as qualifying income for purposes of the 3.8% __surtax on net investment income__. This means that for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and joint filers earning more than $250,000, the effective long-term capital gains tax rate is 3.8 percentage points higher than otherwise indicated._

_Second, be aware that you only have to pay tax on the net amount of capital gains you have. So if you sell one stock at a gain and another at a loss, those two figures can balance each other out, and you'll only pay tax on the total amount of overall profit from the combination of both positions.

Long-Term Capital Gains Tax Rates in 2015 --  The Motley Fool
_
*no tax on dividends*

Wrong.





Dividend Tax Rates: Plan Ahead for the IRS's Cut of Your Dividend Income --  The Motley Fool
*
I pay approximately 25 - 30% tax rate.*

On what income?
_
_


----------



## jc456

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the left has never figured out how to use percentages on money.  EVAH
> 
> 
> 
> I know  enough to know their percentages are less than mine and that is bullshit.
Click to expand...

So do you pay 25% like trump?


----------



## jc456

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain please.
> 
> 
> 
> They pay between 10 - 15% tax rate on capitol gains, no tax on dividends and they're allowed to offshore their profits to avoid paying more taxes.  I pay approximately 25 - 30% tax rate.  I don't want them paying less than I do.
> 
> We need to raise the tax rate on capitol gains a full 10%, start taxing stock dividends at 25%, impose a Franchise Transactions Tax for every share traded on Wall Street and close these loopholes that allow them to offshore profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *They pay between 10 - 15% tax rate on capitol gains*
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> *Calculating the tax*
> _Once you know the amount of the gain, you need to know the tax rates that apply. Three different rates exist on long-term capital gains, and which one is right for you depends on __what tax bracket you're in__:_
> 
> 
> _If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket for ordinary income, then your long-term capital gains rate is 0%._
> _If you're in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax bracket, then your long-term capital gains rate is 15%._
> _If you're in the 39.6% tax bracket, then your long-term capital gains rate is 20%._
> _Those rates apply to federal taxes, but if your state has an income tax, you'll probably have to add on an additional amount there. Some states, such as California, make no distinction between long-term capital gains and other types of income in imposing taxes. Others, such as Massachusetts, have much lower rates for long-term capital gains than for short-term gains. Your particular tax rate will depend on your income level and the specific brackets that your state imposes. For a good overview, check out __this article on state capital gains taxes__._
> 
> *3 other things to keep in mind*
> _In addition to the above, there are a few things you should remember about long-term and the taxes you have to pay on them.
> First, for high-income taxpayers, long-term capital gains do count as qualifying income for purposes of the 3.8% __surtax on net investment income__. This means that for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and joint filers earning more than $250,000, the effective long-term capital gains tax rate is 3.8 percentage points higher than otherwise indicated._
> 
> _Second, be aware that you only have to pay tax on the net amount of capital gains you have. So if you sell one stock at a gain and another at a loss, those two figures can balance each other out, and you'll only pay tax on the total amount of overall profit from the combination of both positions.
> 
> Long-Term Capital Gains Tax Rates in 2015 --  The Motley Fool
> _
> *no tax on dividends*
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> View attachment 116939
> 
> Dividend Tax Rates: Plan Ahead for the IRS's Cut of Your Dividend Income --  The Motley Fool
> *
> I pay approximately 25 - 30% tax rate.*
> 
> On what income?
Click to expand...

He must make what trump makes . So he's bitching about his own self


----------



## Billo_Really

jc456 said:


> So do you pay 25% like trump?


I pay almost 30%.


----------



## Billo_Really

jc456 said:


> He must make what trump makes . So he's bitching about his own self


And you must make up bullshit because you're too pussy to deal with reality.


----------



## JBond

Billo_Really said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why Obama never addressed the billionaires? He talked about it, but none of the plans he put forth did. He always targeted the small business owner, never the billionaire. The Dems are absolute phonies on this topic. Their actions never match their rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> Dems and Reps are flip sides of the same coin.  They both answer to those billionaires.  And that includes Obama.  Bottom line, he's a politician. There's a lot of shit he did that was wrong.  I'm talking about the real things he did, not the made up stuff from the right.
> 
> We need to reverse Citizens United and repeal that 19th century law that said corporations can have the same Constitutional rights as an actual human being.  These billionaires could care less about the health and welfare of this country and I think its about time we showed them the door swings both ways.
Click to expand...

What we need is true campaign limits directly to candidates. Let's say any individual can donate up to 5k to any candidate. That would include entities such a unions and corporations, meaning they could make a a single 5k contribution to whomever. No bundling allowed. Just individual donations. In addition they could donate a total of 5k to 501's. That it. After the 10k total, they are done.


----------



## JBond

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you pay 25% like trump?
> 
> 
> 
> I pay almost 30%.
Click to expand...

You need a better accountant.


----------



## danielpalos

How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?


----------



## jc456

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you pay 25% like trump?
> 
> 
> 
> I pay almost 30%.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## jc456

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He must make what trump makes . So he's bitching about his own self
> 
> 
> 
> And you must make up bullshit because you're too pussy to deal with reality.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh your lies are yours


----------



## jc456

JBond said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you pay 25% like trump?
> 
> 
> 
> I pay almost 30%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a better accountant.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that! Nice post


----------



## JBond

danielpalos said:


> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?


Define rich. 150k? 250k?


----------



## BoSoxGal

YES!

I had no issue with paying a much higher tax bracket when I was bringing in 6 figures, and certainly folks bringing in 9 figures and above should be paying that much more!


----------



## JBond

jc456 said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you pay 25% like trump?
> 
> 
> 
> I pay almost 30%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a better accountant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say that! Nice post
Click to expand...

The tax rate and effective tax rate people pay are two different things. Then add in the other items deducted from workers checks, such as the payroll tax, and he might be right there.


----------



## g5000

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a dear, so please cease with the tripe. You have done nothing but divert, which is considered a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do we do that, with progressive forms of income tax; that we actually and currently have?
> 
> nothing but right wing fantasy and projection.
Click to expand...

It would be very easy to cut tax rates for everyone.  Very easy.  In fact, our politicians know exactly how to do it, but they are owned by special interests which won't let them.

You see, we give away $1.4 trillion a year in government gifts in the form of tax expenditures.  That is literally twice as much as we spend on welfare.  If we ended all these tax expenditures, would could lower tax rates for everyone and pay down the debt.

We would also benefit from immediate campaign finance reform if tax expenditures were banned.  After all, you have no incentive to bribe a Congressman if he can't give you a carve-out in the tax code.

Easy peasy.  We should be shooting congressmen and senators in the streets until they shut down this corrupt business of tax expenditures which transfer trillions of dollars from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.


----------



## jc456

JBond said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you pay 25% like trump?
> 
> 
> 
> I pay almost 30%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a better accountant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say that! Nice post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax rate and effective tax rate people pay are two different things. Then add in the other items deducted from workers checks, such as the payroll tax, and he might be right there.
Click to expand...

Well that's the same for everyone


----------



## Billo_Really

jc456 said:


> Why?


Because I'm a dumbass!


----------



## Billo_Really

JBond said:


> What we need is true campaign limits directly to candidates. Let's say any individual can donate up to 5k to any candidate. That would include entities such a unions and corporations, meaning they could make a a single 5k contribution to whomever. No bundling allowed. Just individual donations. In addition they could donate a total of 5k to 501's. That it. After the 10k total, they are done.


I think it should be a law that all campaign donations have to be made anonymously, making it illegal for any candidate to know who is giving them money.

The other alternative is to make members of Congress dress like NASCAR drivers and have every corporation that donates to them be a patch on the outside of their clothing.




https://postimage.org/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Billo_Really said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm a dumbass!
Click to expand...


And really bad at math.


----------



## Nia88

It works for all other first world nations in the world. It's would definitely work for us.


----------



## danielpalos

JBond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
Click to expand...

the one percent.


----------



## danielpalos

g5000 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Commerce Clause; don't complain, be Patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commerce clause to raise taxes on the poor? What the hell is wrong with you and wanting to tax the poor? You are a fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but fantasy from the national socialist right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise taxes on the poor? Should we not lower taxes on the poor and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do we do that, with progressive forms of income tax; that we actually and currently have?
> 
> nothing but right wing fantasy and projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be very easy to cut tax rates for everyone.  Very easy.  In fact, our politicians know exactly how to do it, but they are owned by special interests which won't let them.
> 
> You see, we give away $1.4 trillion a year in government gifts in the form of tax expenditures.  That is literally twice as much as we spend on welfare.  If we ended all these tax expenditures, would could lower tax rates for everyone and pay down the debt.
> 
> We would also benefit from immediate campaign finance reform if tax expenditures were banned.  After all, you have no incentive to bribe a Congressman if he can't give you a carve-out in the tax code.
> 
> Easy peasy.  We should be shooting congressmen and senators in the streets until they shut down this corrupt business of tax expenditures which transfer trillions of dollars from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.
Click to expand...

why not just end our war on drugs?


----------



## JBond

danielpalos said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the one percent.
Click to expand...

Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?


----------



## danielpalos

JBond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
Click to expand...

as much as it takes to fund government.  

Good Capitalists merely insist their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ Republic money can buy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.



Methinks you understand neither the purpose of taxes, nor the definition of "selfish".


----------



## thereisnospoon

MathewSmith said:


> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.


everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.....Success and achievement should be congratulated. Not punished.
The difference between the ideologies is conservatives see taxation as a means to operate the essential functions of government. 
Liberals see taxation as a means to redistribute and punish.
the very idea that just because one has more, therefore must suffer more, is nonsense.
BTW, in the last 5 years, overall tax revenues to the federal government have increased to their highest levels in the history of the US. Yet, those on the left continue to complain it isn't enough.
Soaking people with confiscatory taxation creates an adversarial environment. This forces those with means, the investor class for example, to bury their cash reserves. What you people on the left refer to as "hoarding"....Another lefty buzz terms mean to shame those who earn it into being forced to hand it over.
Look, forcing people to pay more to a wasteful and fraudulent spending government is equivalent to giving a fat person more to eat after they promise to lose weight.
That's backward. 
The federal government should be forced to find ways to spend less, streamline operations and cut staff wherever possible.
Once Washington can demonstrate that it can be a good steward of the people's money, then we can have a discussion regarding higher taxes.


----------



## thereisnospoon

danielpalos said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as much as it takes to fund government.
> 
> Good Capitalists merely insist their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
Click to expand...

The federal government receives more than it requires to run efficiently. Let them figure out how to spend wisely. 
Those of you who don't think government gets enough are free to write a check


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?


That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Ray From Cleveland said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
Click to expand...

yep....However. Consumption taxes would result in the existing underground economy to grow exponentially. 
How would one tax for example, a barter? Or the buying and selling of goods at private sales such as garage sales or flea markets? 
in order to have a VAT system, not only would the federal government have to set up a huge bureaucracy to monitor all purchases and other transactions, so would each state.
I think a flat tax for individuals would work. If the tax code were simplified and less confiscatory, people would be more comfortable with paying taxes.
Per business owners, deductions for expenses would have to be part of the equation. Accounting would have to be performed so that only NET income is taxed at the flat rate.
Now, other income such as dividends and other investments should only be taxed when they are liquidated. And at a rate not to exceed 10%. The reasoning behind this is that the various government agencies have already taxed this money when it was earned. They should not get a full second bite at the apple.
Same goes for any inheritance. 10%. Right off the top. Whatever it is. Stocks, binds, cash, liquidation of assets, tax it all. At 10%....That starts at ZERO. No deductions.


----------



## thereisnospoon

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
Click to expand...

"but would still be rich"...
When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rightwinger said:


> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure


Supply side was not invented in the 1980's . From the days when the settlers traded with the Indians, that was supply side.
All those little frontier towns were examples of supply side working the best for the most.
And it continues today...
For example. Downtown Tampa. 
The city proposes a site to build an entertainment and sports complex. This area was blighted and needed improvement. 
Once the plans were publicized guess what happened. Land near the site became a hot commodity. People started buying the land. They built businesses and housing. 
A friend of a friend bought this old run down sport bar. He took his own money and that of investors and borrowed from banks. He turned this place into a successful sports bar. Before and after every event held at the complex, his place is packed. 
The loans were paid, the investors made a profit. Over 100 people are employed at the place. Not only that, there are dozens of newer businesses in the area as a direct result of the private investors who had a stake in the Complex. 
So lots of new jobs were created. A once blighted area of the city is not a viable business and entertainment area. Once crime ridden and filthy. this is an area known for safety and security as well as prosperity.
So, you tell me, where's the problem with supply side?


----------



## thereisnospoon

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Click to expand...

"Fairer"?....define "fairer"..BTW ...No such word. it is "more fair"..
Why should; anything be "fair"?.....It would be more accurate to say "just"....
In any event, I see no viable reason to tax someone more just because they earn more. 
Let everyone pay the same percentage. The numbers still work out. 
Lets say 10%.. If one earns the national median income of 45k, their tax would be $4,500....If another earns $200,000( 444% more), their tax is $20,000....That's 444% more....I'm struggling to see a problem there


----------



## thereisnospoon

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several rates instead of one, but all the complexity that the flat tax removes gets taken out as well.
> 
> I should say though that I don't agree with having an oversimplified tax plan.  There should always be some room for one to reduce one's taxes by various worthwhile means.
Click to expand...

"worthwhile"....Yeah, here we go....That requires a judgment of a subjective term. "Worthwhile"...Now we must deal with the opinions of many people who have their own perception of "worthwhile"....
Your idea just opens the same can of worms.
The best way is remove all the variables. Break it down to "you earned THIS..Therefore you PAY THIS"....


----------



## hadit

thereisnospoon said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.


----------



## Dragonlady

Xelor said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
Click to expand...


That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.


----------



## hadit

thereisnospoon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked before
> 
> One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure
> 
> 
> 
> Supply side was not invented in the 1980's . From the days when the settlers traded with the Indians, that was supply side.
> All those little frontier towns were examples of supply side working the best for the most.
> And it continues today...
> For example. Downtown Tampa.
> The city proposes a site to build an entertainment and sports complex. This area was blighted and needed improvement.
> Once the plans were publicized guess what happened. Land near the site became a hot commodity. People started buying the land. They built businesses and housing.
> A friend of a friend bought this old run down sport bar. He took his own money and that of investors and borrowed from banks. He turned this place into a successful sports bar. Before and after every event held at the complex, his place is packed.
> The loans were paid, the investors made a profit. Over 100 people are employed at the place. Not only that, there are dozens of newer businesses in the area as a direct result of the private investors who had a stake in the Complex.
> So lots of new jobs were created. A once blighted area of the city is not a viable business and entertainment area. Once crime ridden and filthy. this is an area known for safety and security as well as prosperity.
> So, you tell me, where's the problem with supply side?
Click to expand...

"Supply side" is just incentivizing the wealthy to use their wealth instead of locking it away.  It's a much superior method of getting the money moving around and benefitting everyone than the "liberal" approach, which is to demonize the wealthy and attempt to confiscate it.


----------



## hadit

Dragonlady said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
Click to expand...

And how did the wealthy accomplish this feat of impoverishing so many?


----------



## thereisnospoon

eagle1462010 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes.  The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
> 
> Let's go to a simple flat tax.  That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race.  A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people.  For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off.  Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit.  Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
> You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system.  Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.
> 
> How would this force you to raise rents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the rent collected goes towards bills.  Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills.  A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs.  That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity.  That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax.  As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
Click to expand...

Ray is stating, as I understand it, his tax would be figured on his GROSS receipts. Which to a business owner is unjust. We believe that because even though the money for our work is passed form our customers to our hands, we must then pass most( most businesses operate on margins of around 10%) of along to the people from whom we purchase items and equipment necessary to operate the business. In effect, this is NOT income. 
Business owners would want to have a flat tax ONLY if the tax were based on NET income. If a business turns a 10% profit, the owners pay a flat tax based on that amount. 
To tax gross receipts would be devastating for the economy. People with means would stop investing and stop spending.


----------



## thereisnospoon

hadit said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how did the wealthy accomplish this feat of impoverishing so many?
Click to expand...

You are posting to someone who believes wealth is not earned. "Lady" believes as many class warfare libs that wealth is "stolen"....
This belief has several theories. 
1. the belief in the Keyensian theory of the zero sum game. That if one has more, then another MUST have less
2. That those who have achieved wealth are recipients of awards through the so called "lottery of life"
3. That those who have found a niche and created something have done so only because they were able to victimize others


----------



## danielpalos

thereisnospoon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as much as it takes to fund government.
> 
> Good Capitalists merely insist their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government receives more than it requires to run efficiently. Let them figure out how to spend wisely.
> Those of you who don't think government gets enough are free to write a check
Click to expand...

I am advocating for ending our War on Drugs, instead.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
Click to expand...

The one percent can afford to have artificial persons, "work hard" and pay their tax, for them.


----------



## usmbguest5318

Dragonlady said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
Click to expand...

Show me the figures that indicate over half the working population, or even over half the population is "impoverished to the point that they pay no taxes."


----------



## danielpalos

thereisnospoon said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
Click to expand...

How much of an actual Burden is the personal income tax on the one percent, as a percentage of income, when compared to the poor?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
Click to expand...

It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how did the wealthy accomplish this feat of impoverishing so many?
Click to expand...

Misguided public policies.  

Jim Crow is one, egregious example.


----------



## regent

Perhaps the rich should not pay any taxes, after all they made America and did the hard work. Next time you see a worker digging up the street, sweating in labor, think of how could we expect him to pay taxes?


----------



## usmbguest5318

thereisnospoon said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how did the wealthy accomplish this feat of impoverishing so many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are posting to someone who believes wealth is not earned. "Lady" believes as many class warfare libs that wealth is "stolen"....
> This belief has several theories.
> 1. the belief in the Keyensian theory of the zero sum game. That if one has more, then another MUST have less
> 2. That those who have achieved wealth are recipients of awards through the so called "lottery of life"
> 3. That those who have found a niche and created something have done so only because they were able to victimize others
Click to expand...




thereisnospoon said:


> the belief in the Keyensian theory of the zero sum game.



I don't think anyone -- liberal or conservative -- who actually understands economics and wealth creation sees Keynesian or any other economic model as a zero-sum proposition.  For that proposition/assumption to be so, the increases in GDP would have to attributable entirely to inflation as the total sum of money and resources available to be owned by anyone would have to be fixed from time immemorial and forever into the future.  The very fact that the middle class emerged while wealthy people's wealth continued to increase is clear evidence that the zero-sum idea is utter poppycock.

Might there be people who actually do think any economic models are indeed zero-sum "games?"  I suppose there are, but why would anyone who actually does understand economics and wealth creation, and who isn't a teacher of economics/finance, waste their time discussing economic, fiscal and financial policy with those people?  I mean, really.  At some point, one must realize one is interacting with an economic ignoramus and just "cut bait" and move on.  As Rothbard said:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline, and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
 ― Murray N. Rothbard​


----------



## thereisnospoon

danielpalos said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> 
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as much as it takes to fund government.
> 
> Good Capitalists merely insist their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government receives more than it requires to run efficiently. Let them figure out how to spend wisely.
> Those of you who don't think government gets enough are free to write a check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for ending our War on Drugs, instead.
Click to expand...

The war on drugs? Deflect much?


----------



## thereisnospoon

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".
Click to expand...

Not meaningless. Because the poor DO NOT pay net income taxes.
They are the recipient class. They have no skin in the game. The poor have a right to vote. And with that, they also have the ability to vote for their pwn pay raises by electing the people to government with the power to give them something.
it is about time those who can vote themselves more handouts be made part of the system.


----------



## JBond

danielpalos said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Define rich. 150k? 250k?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as much as it takes to fund government.
Click to expand...

Since we are currently running deficits, we should take all of it, correct?


----------



## JBond

thereisnospoon said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.....Success and achievement should be congratulated. Not punished.
> The difference between the ideologies is conservatives see taxation as a means to operate the essential functions of government.
> Liberals see taxation as a means to redistribute and punish.
> the very idea that just because one has more, therefore must suffer more, is nonsense.
> BTW, in the last 5 years, overall tax revenues to the federal government have increased to their highest levels in the history of the US. Yet, those on the left continue to complain it isn't enough.
> Soaking people with confiscatory taxation creates an adversarial environment. This forces those with means, the investor class for example, to bury their cash reserves. What you people on the left refer to as "hoarding"....Another lefty buzz terms mean to shame those who earn it into being forced to hand it over.
> Look, forcing people to pay more to a wasteful and fraudulent spending government is equivalent to giving a fat person more to eat after they promise to lose weight.
> That's backward.
> The federal government should be forced to find ways to spend less, streamline operations and cut staff wherever possible.
> Once Washington can demonstrate that it can be a good steward of the people's money, then we can have a discussion regarding higher taxes.
Click to expand...

Starve the beast. I like it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".
Click to expand...

Explain how a poor person who receives a tax refund that is greater than the tax he owed is paying income taxes, if you can.  If you can't, please regurgitate a nonsense, meaningless question.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JBond said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> everyone should pay the same percentage of their income.....Success and achievement should be congratulated. Not punished.
> The difference between the ideologies is conservatives see taxation as a means to operate the essential functions of government.
> Liberals see taxation as a means to redistribute and punish.
> the very idea that just because one has more, therefore must suffer more, is nonsense.
> BTW, in the last 5 years, overall tax revenues to the federal government have increased to their highest levels in the history of the US. Yet, those on the left continue to complain it isn't enough.
> Soaking people with confiscatory taxation creates an adversarial environment. This forces those with means, the investor class for example, to bury their cash reserves. What you people on the left refer to as "hoarding"....Another lefty buzz terms mean to shame those who earn it into being forced to hand it over.
> Look, forcing people to pay more to a wasteful and fraudulent spending government is equivalent to giving a fat person more to eat after they promise to lose weight.
> That's backward.
> The federal government should be forced to find ways to spend less, streamline operations and cut staff wherever possible.
> Once Washington can demonstrate that it can be a good steward of the people's money, then we can have a discussion regarding higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Starve the beast. I like it.
Click to expand...

When Pres Trump announced the 600 positions in the White House over which the Chief Executive has full discretion would not be filled, the lefties had a melt down. 
Which I thought was quite amusing.


----------



## thereisnospoon

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how a poor person who receives a tax refund that is greater than the tax he owed is paying income taxes, if you can.  If you can't, please regurgitate a nonsense, meaningless question.
Click to expand...

Here's the lefty pat response. "Well, they had taxes deducted from their paycheck. So they had to live without that money until they received their "return".....I HATE that misuse of terms. When the government mails a check. it is NOT a "return"...it is a REFUND.....
In any event, liberals view payroll deductions as "having paid taxes".....In the short term, that is true. However, when the net is considered AFTER the IRS issues a refund, and that refund exceeds the amount paid over the course of the year, the net revenue to the government from that individual is a minus. This means that person paid no taxes.


----------



## hadit

thereisnospoon said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> 
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how a poor person who receives a tax refund that is greater than the tax he owed is paying income taxes, if you can.  If you can't, please regurgitate a nonsense, meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the lefty pat response. "Well, they had taxes deducted from their paycheck. So they had to live without that money until they received their "return".....I HATE that misuse of terms. When the government mails a check. it is NOT a "return"...it is a REFUND.....
> In any event, liberals view payroll deductions as "having paid taxes".....In the short term, that is true. However, when the net is considered AFTER the IRS issues a refund, and that refund exceeds the amount paid over the course of the year, the net revenue to the government from that individual is a minus. This means that person paid no taxes.
Click to expand...

I've always said that the fastest way to tax reform is:

1.  Hold elections the day after taxes are due.
2.  Eliminate payroll tax withholding.


----------



## easyt65

"Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?"

Only Rich LIBERALS.

If they have enough money to organize 'Hate' Marches...if they have enough money to fund organizations that send thugs to opposition rallies to intimidate, beat and bloody their supporters...if they have enough money to pay people to fire-bomb GOP HQs...then they obviously have more money than they responsibly know what to do with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?
> 
> I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much more would you have rich people pay?  Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because they have now impoverished over half of the people to the point that they pay no taxes. Once they completely wipe out the middle class, they'll pay 100% of the taxes paid because no one else has any money.   That still doesn't mean they're paying enough of their income in taxes.
Click to expand...


Excuse me?  The wealthy "impoverished people"?  And now you're going to substantiate your assertion in detail, right?


----------



## danielpalos

regent said:


> Perhaps the rich should not pay any taxes, after all they made America and did the hard work. Next time you see a worker digging up the street, sweating in labor, think of how could we expect him to pay taxes?


why is there a tax break for capital gains in lucre, but not an historical work ethic from the Age of Iron?


----------



## danielpalos

thereisnospoon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Forbes defines that as earning $717,000 per year. Is that a fair number to work with? How much of that money should the government take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as much as it takes to fund government.
> 
> Good Capitalists merely insist their public servants merely purchase the _finest_ Republic money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government receives more than it requires to run efficiently. Let them figure out how to spend wisely.
> Those of you who don't think government gets enough are free to write a check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for ending our War on Drugs, instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war on drugs? Deflect much?
Click to expand...

We could end our income tax by ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.


----------



## danielpalos

thereisnospoon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on their income for that year.  A wealthy business owner, for example, could have a bad year in which he paid himself a very small or no salary at all, and thus would pay very little.  If I made 10 mil one year and 100K the next, I would pay vastly different tax amounts, but would still be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "but would still be rich"...
> When I see stuff like this ^....My red flag goes to the top of the pole.
> Such phrases are used as a means to paint a negative connotation on wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out that "how much do the rich pay in actual, personal income taxes?" is a meaningless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just as meaningless as, "the poor pay no income taxes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not meaningless. Because the poor DO NOT pay net income taxes.
> They are the recipient class. They have no skin in the game. The poor have a right to vote. And with that, they also have the ability to vote for their pwn pay raises by electing the people to government with the power to give them something.
> it is about time those who can vote themselves more handouts be made part of the system.
Click to expand...

dear, Mr. Trump and the poor pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.


----------

